Posted on 07/22/2007 10:33:12 AM PDT by neverdem
The Iraq war critics seized upon a new intelligence report that al-Qaida has been rejuvenated by the Iraq war as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. OK, that should be good for a few minutes of bashing President Bush, but it doesn't change the reality that al-Qaida is in Iraq and is our enemy.
Here's another thought: What would be the reaction of the quit-Iraq advocates should al-Qaida in Iraq's fingerprints be found in a terrorist attack in America?
This is not an idle question. After all, the National Intelligence Estimate released last week also said Osama bin Laden's organization will "probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission has said another attack on America by Islamist terrorists is inevitable, and a new threat assessment a week ago from the National Counterterrorism Center suggested al-Qaida is working to renew attacks on America. Now we're told al-Qaida in Iraq could be the agent for it.
No doubt, even as the bodies were being recovered, the wounded treated and survivors consoled, the implacable Bush haters would blame his policies for an attack by al-Qaida in Iraq. But what would be the view of the majority of Americans who have been telling pollsters that it's time for America to withdraw the troops from Iraq?
It seems reasonable to conclude in the aftermath of another mega-attack that Americans would come to agree with bin Laden and al-Qaida that the central front in the war between America and Islamist terrorism is in Iraq, despite the serious challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If so, they might decide that defeating al-Qaida requires more troops, not fewer, and not just in Iraq but Afghanistan as well. And support for the much-maligned Patriot Act would grow.
Those would not be unnatural responses. For example, in Europe the bungled car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow have governments looking at Patriot Act-like measures. German officials talked about increased surveillance and preventive detentions before worries about the country's Nazi history forced them to retreat somewhat. The BBC reports the head of Britain's association of police chiefs has suggested the terrorism threat means that suspects should be held "for as long as it takes."
As the 9/11 attack has receded in memory and bitterness grown over Iraq, we've seen signs Americans have been shifting back to 9/10 thinking, swinging back toward the notion that terrorism is a criminal issue. The problem with that view is that while terrorist attacks may resemble criminal acts in many ways, the intention and effects are dramatically different. A criminal's goal is make an illegal profit from society; a terrorist's goal is attack the very fabric of society, to destroy the social and economic order.
Remember how the economy shut down in the days after 9/11? Six years later Chicago hasn't completely recovered. The Tribune reports Chicago's convention and trade show agency, the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, still suffers from a "debt-service pinch [that] stems from the hospitality industry's tailspin after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
There are those who dismiss the latest intelligence estimate as a Bush scare tactic to bolster support for his Iraq policy. But no one disputes the central thrust of the report -- al-Qaida remains determined to strike at the heart of American again, maybe through its Iraqi affiliate. That last part certainly complicates arguments that we should get out of Iraq.
If we get out of Iraq when the delusional Left wants it, Chicago will never recover its luster. It will revert back to being the fur trading outpost that it used to be a few hundred years ago.
If we get out of Iraq when the delusional Left wants it, Chicago will never recover its luster. It will revert back to being the fur trading outpost that it used to be a few hundred years ago.
bttt
There has never, ever been a nation at war as poorly led as ours is today.
Nope. Remember, according to the Left, furs are out, and a symbol of man’s atrocities against Mother Nature and here Creatures.
Chicago will have to revert back to the “Place of wild onions” the Indians named it to be.
Really, 4 years and 3500 casualties?? Show us a war that was run better.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Intelligence report? Gimme a break - any "intelligence" out of the "Clinton CIA" is garbage. Clinton downsized the good people out and left diehard kneejerk liberals. For these folks, the enemy lives in the White House. Is anyone surprised they missed 9-11? They were probably too busy fussing about what the Republicans were up to.... Politics over competence. And their "intelligence" reports? My guess? They're Garbage. Garbage to stick it to our President and all Republicans. Central Intelligence Agency? Nope. More like Clinton's Intelligence Agency. One more ugly legacy. Bush needs to clean house.
I sorry but I don’t take seriously the rabid PR vomit of a 14% approval rating Democrat Congressional Leadership.
The Democrats have now reach the point that the ONLY people who approve of them are the same rabid 10-15% who could not bring themselves to support either the President or the USA in the immedeate aftermath of 09-11.
How did they get their? Well they ran AWAY from taking any position on Iraq all thur 2006. They threw tempetrantrums when ever anyone said they wanted to Cut and Run from Iraq.
Then they went to DC and did nothing but try to Cut and Run from Iraq for 6 months.
In that time they went from a 50% approval rating to a 14% approval rating. The lowest Congressional approval rating ever.
So what do you do after destroying your political capital in a mere 6 months?
Well if you are Nancy P and Dopy Harry, you get even more shrill and belicose about Iraq. Meanwhile the American Voters are wonder when DC is going to get off it butt and do something about record high gas prices, a slowing Economy and a still unresolved Illegal Immigration crises.
Just what do these clowns think they are going to go run on in 2008?
You might find this story useful
Once we kill Al Qadah in Iraq, any country that harbors them is next,
.
>Every Democrat plan leaves Troops in Iraq<
.
reducing Troop levels in Iraq only means we stay longer.
I can't speak for them, but my reaction would be "Is Bush going to start protecting our borders now?!"
Until a month ago, the US forces in Iraq were basically running a garrison operation. The effect was that they would suppress much of the violence, but would not actually go out and kill the enemy. We were trying to wait out the terrorists. That is one reason why there are so few casualties: we were not engaging the enemy. It did not work because it was apparent we are more impatient than the enemy.
The surge is active engagement and as a result, bombings are down, there are more enemy dead, but we also have more casualties.
Why did we have to surge right now and engage the enemy? Because we are losing the will to resist. Why? Because the war is being poorly run at home.
The administration is trying to fight a war without making the people feel like they are on a war footing. The reason is to keep the consumer economy booming. The downside is nobody believes we are at war, and even if we are that it is not that important if we lose. That is the big mistake.
Iraq isn't drawing al Qaeda, it's creating them. AQI didn't exist until 2004, when an exisiting Sunni terrorist group renamed itself al Qaeda in Iraq. The Coalition forces just released a report on who they have in custody. Out of about 19,000 people, less than 500 were foreign. There are very few foreign fighters in Iraq. Meanwhile, the real al Qaeda is flourishing on its mountain hideout.
I don't see the point in pretending that reality is any different.
Well, if the direct result of the horrific war leadership of George W. Bush is that the Republicans are thrown out of Congress and the White House, and that America is opened to attack or surrender by the Democrats who will take over, what difference does it make what happens in a barbarian-run pesthole like "Iraq"?
Really, 4 years and 3500 casualties?? Show us a war that was run better. Pray for W and Our Troops ...... bray
Wars are not won by casualty counts.
By casualty counts, the Germans "won" the Battle of Verdun, they "won" the Battle of Jutland and they also "won" World War One against the combined forces of the British Empire, France and the U.S.
Wars are won by those who have the willpower and guts to stick it out and remain in possession of what is being fought for, regardless of the casualty count.
An effective war leader must not only win battlefield victories. He must also ensure that the Home Front does not run away like a flock of frightened pigeons.
Right now, we are on the verge of defeat in Iraq because George W. Bush has shown such ineptness in explaining the strategic stakes involved and bucking up the morale of the Home Front that the Home Front has elected a Copperhead majority in both the House and Senate and may very well elect a Copperhead to the White House in November of 2008.
Abraham Lincoln had a military that suffered military disaster after military disaster at First Bull Run, Second Bull Run, The Seven Days, Chancellorsvile and Fredericksburg and still managed to keep the Home Front motivated for final victory.
George W. Bush has a military that has won victories unequaled in military history and, yet, now has a demoralized Home Front one Election Day away from declaring an American defeat and abandoning the battlefield to the enemy.
That is what Jim Noble means by "poorly led" and I agree with him.
It is certainly likely that anything out of the CIA is garbage - but blaming Clinton is getting pretty old.
George W. Bush has had absolute control of, and executive responsibility for, the CIA for six and a half years.
It's the BUSH CIA, and it has been for more than six years.
And as a result of his miserable and incompetent leadership, it will soon be the Clinton CIA again.
“Ansar al-Sunna is an outgrowth of Ansar al-Islam [Defenders of Islam], a group with ties to Iran and which administration officials have linked to al-Qaeda.[2] Initially operating under the moniker Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), Ansar al-Islam grew out of the September 2001 unification of several militant Islamist groups which had taken root in the mountains of northern Iraq along the Iranian border.”
http://www.meib.org/articles/0405_iraq1.htm
I don’t care what name they want to call themselves this week, they’re Al-Qaeda and were in Iraq at the beginning and are still coming in as expected so I don’t see any point in pretending you know any different.
“Ansar al-Sunna, which officially declared its existence in a September 20, 2003 Internet statement, evolved from the coalescence of Kurdish Ansar al-Islam operatives, foreign al-Qaeda terrorists, and newly mobilized Iraqi Sunnis. “A group of mujahidin . . . have gathered a number of scattered jihad factions and groups operating in the arena from north to south and formed a big army under one emir,” its inaugural statement declares.[10] The independent Kurdish newspaper Hawlati traced the formation of the group to a schism within Ansar al-Islam dating back to July 2002.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.