Al Qaeda is not in Iraq? I thought Obama had this foreign policy thing in the bag, baby.
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (67) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First the guy gets Iraq and Iran confused in Senate hearings and now Obama stumbles and nearly shows his cards -- he doesn't believe Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Watch the clip and relish the stumbled, fumbled recovery.
Remember: This dude, who want to preemptively cave to China and surrender to our terrorist enemies in the Middle East, wants you think he has better foreign policy experience than either Clinton or McCain.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: Al Franken gets caught in a lie. Fails to carry workers compensation insurance. — Comments (6) »
Al Qaeda is not in Iraq? I thought Obama had this foreign policy thing in the bag, baby. 67 Comments (0 topical, 67 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"I hope that Senator McCain is paying attention to this. I want Obama to be exposed as for the phony he is."
The trouble is, McCain will not expose him...
Thats up to Redstate and Rush and us.
We have to do what he should be doing.
...why are people so insistent about John McCain jumping into it? If we held the election today he'd win: the Democrats are busily plunging knives into each other; and we have the happy prospect of watching them collect our raw footage and field-test our general election strategies for us for very likely the next four months.
And we're not paying for a dime for any of this.
That being said, McCain needs to step up his infrastructure repair work. I believe that getting right with the NRA's next up.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
President Bush and not defend himself vigorously and we will be frustrated in defending him as we have the President.
I find your argument that he need do nothing now I would like to see a little offensive posture oh I don't know every other week or so.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I think its great that McCain gets to go about his work..
But when will he Pounce on this guy and just seal the deal.
The suspense is killing me and making my day at the same time.
He seems to be having difficulty closing the deal.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
than Mr. Obama. They understand that sitting around in an Iraqi safe house will eventually end in a crater. They do send plenty of their foot soliders into Iraq because THEY SEE IT as the critical battle to be won.
They do seem to keep a low profile wherever they, again the whole crater thing.
Does Obama know where they are ? GPS coordinates would be nice :)
"The most significant events in life are usually the result of unintended consequences."
tell me that someone in the RNC is copying all this stuff down to use later. there has been enough ALREADY to sink this fool. But I fear we are just moving along and McCain's team will be too incompetent to make proper use of the 100 clips and videos we already have on the False Messiah..
Obama is Jimmy Carter- only without the sweater.
I'm not sure that its Team McCain's incompetent as it is that McCain has spent far too much time playing "Mr. Senatorial Collegiality" and "reaching across the aisle" to play footsie with his Democrat collegues.
When November comes I will cast my ballot for McCain but it will be as much to vote against the Democrat as it will be to vote for McCain.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
if the majority of the American people were not as woefully uninformed as he is.
He demonstrates that he is an idiot. In the last two elections for president, 49% and 48% have demonstrated the same. He is mobilizing millions of new, and even less informed, young voters.
He is the most dangerous candidate we have faced in decades.
Wait wait wait...
He says "the key al-Qaeda leadership is not based in Iraq." This is true. Osama's not in Iraq, and if al-Qaeda has any links in Iraq, it's with puppets and not key individuals. Unless you want to say that you can pin down Obama's "true" views based on a simple stumble in his speech, but that seems a rather weak way to argue against him, right?
Osama's not in Iraq,
Do you know where he is? Besides, guess what? He does not matter anyway at this point.
if al-Qaeda has any links in Iraq
Are you seriously posing this as an "if"?
it's with puppets and not key individuals
Really. What's your source of familiarity with al Qaeda in Iraq and who may be "key individuals" vis á vis the international terror scene? You make many assumptions, as evidenced in the comment above, and you clearly have no basis in fact for those whatsoever.
I will gladly admit that I don't have any definitive evidence of Osama's whereabouts, nor what the key individuals may be for the terror scene. I would presume not even US intelligence knows exactly, and I'm sure you don't either. So we could stand here and argue over these points forever without ever coming to a definitive conclusion. (And really, that's what waaay too much online debate breaks down to.)
But that wasn't my point anyways. My point was that saying "Aha! We caught Obama saying something wrong!" was based on a stumble in his speech. My point was that is extremely weak evidence of anything.
But presume away. Your statement above, of course, made it appear (purposely) that you knew for a fact which terrorists were not in Iraq, and how key the ones there ("if," as you said, they were even there) are.
Now we're to presumptions and different points. Care to keep backing away from your original self-beclowning?
Well to put the onus of responsibility on to yourself, what are the organizational connections you see between "al-Qaeda" and "al-Qaeda in Iraq"? Besides the obvious connection in their names (which literally proves nothing), can you point out where Osama has given direct orders to AQI? Or where they have provided material support to them? There is little doubt in my mind that AQI wants to be associated with Osama's group, but that hardly means they are the same organization. To explain where I'm coming from more, while I read on a number of sites that AQI is al-Qaeda, I also read on numerous sites that they are not the same group. If you have evidence of their connection, I would be happy to see it. (And to be clear, this is an honest question on my part.)
Also, could we cut out the aggressive stance on your part? I'm not sure why you feel compelled to attack me with things like "self-beclowning", but I'm trying to have a reasonable debate, not a fight.
"Or where they have provided material support to them? There is little doubt in my mind that AQI wants to be associated with Osama's group, but that hardly means they are the same organization. To explain where I'm coming from more, while I read on a number of sites that AQI is al-Qaeda, I also read on numerous sites that they are not the same group. If you have evidence of their connection, I would be happy to see it. (And to be clear, this is an honest question on my part.)"
I think I may be able to help with some of that:
http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id...
(have no idea how good of a source this is)
"During or shortly before the American-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Zarqawi returned to Iran, where he met with bin Laden's military chief, Muhammad Ibrahim Makawi (Saif al-Adel), who asked him to coordinate the entry of al-Qaeda operatives into Iraq through Syria. Zarqawi readily agreed and by the fall of 2003 a steady flow of Arab Islamists were infiltrating Iraq via Syria. Although many of these foreign fighters were not members of Tawhid, they became more or less dependent on Zarqawi's local contacts once they entered the unfamiliar country. Moreover, given Tawhid's superior intelligence gathering capability, it made little sense for non-Tawhid operatives to plan and carry out attacks without coordinating with Zarqawi's lieutenants. Consequentially, Zarqawi came to be recognized as the regional "emir" of Islamist terrorists in Iraq – without (until last month) having sworn fealty to bin Laden."
Cheers Porker! From watching these comment threads, I hadn't really expected anyone to actually contribute to a debate here (as opposed to just shouting at any mildly critical commenters), so I'm pleasantly surprised. Thanks for the link!
Zarqawi "poor little boy" I thought I was reading about a drug addict instead of a mass murderer....AQ in Iraq is the same as AQ in London and Afghanistan and Pakistan....do you not recognize that?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Granted, but if AQ is defined as an ideology, that still leaves the question of different organizations that embody the ideas. To use another example, if communism is an ideology, then Cuba and the USSR were still different countries (although in their case there was also clear material links between the two).
The more pressing problem with defining AQ as an ideology is that it's much less easy to defeat an ideology with military force. AQ as an ogranization can easily be destroyed (once found); AQ as an ideology, not so much. So if AQ is to be defined as an ideology, then I'd think we need to take different tactics in a war against terror. Material destruction alone won't do it - for example, even the downfall of the USSR and the failure of existing communism still hasn't stopped numerous (and even intelligent) people from arguing about the merits of Marx. Destroying terror cells won't stop AQ's ideology either; we'll just have an endless problem that continues to pop up ad nauseum.
build it up and have bases from which to gain information for the GWOT....we have to be where they are....we were not for many years and we had no intelligence gathering capabilities in the Middle East which of course got us 9-11. We must stay on the offense...this is NOT going away.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
The problem I see with this solution is that a large source or al-Qaeda's persuasive power is their ability to mobilize hatred against what they see as American occupation. It doesn't matter whether you and I see it as an occupation, many Arabs do, and AQ is smart enough to use that against us. The benefits of long-term bases in Iraq are outweighed, in my mind, by the costs. That's not to say we shouldn't have intelligence gathering in these countries, but a huge military base is way too obvious.
any useful information...the Iraq WMD's were a figment of Saddam's mind (for the most part) and we had no one intelligence to tell us anything different...we MUST be in that region and we need a large footprint....the Middle East must never again believe that the US will put up with the insanity that is their way of life and spills over to our way of life.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
The way I see it, our aim is to reduce the appeal of AQ-type ideology - and as a result, reduce terrorist attacks. Putting in a large overt military base only angers Arabs in general, though, which contributes to the appeal of terrorist ideology. (The same way I would be angry if a foreign country put a large military base in my country!) So it's a counter-productive move. Its tactical benefits (better intelligence) act against our long-term strategy (reduce terrorism). It only feeds into the insanity we're trying to get rid of!
I can certainly understand that, but to me that's a problem when it comes to fighting an ideology since ideology only works on hearts and minds. To think that pure force will end terrorism is to think that AQ will suddenly disappear if Osama's ever killed. Of course it won't! If we really want to win this war, and not just keep sending troops to die, we have to look at all these aspects. We especially have to look to see whether our actions aren't sometimes counter-productive.
of them....this President is a hearts and minds kinda guy so for that he has made provisions...so you get what you believe is necessary and his decision to have a large footprint gives me what I think is necessary to win...Oh by the way I don't ever frind that our actions are counter productive....we do what we do to stay safe at home and keep our allies safe abroad....and we NEVER send our troops to JUST die....
My favorite at the Post Charles Krauthammer has written a wonderful piece for our next action against the next bad player on our list....Iran...because make no mistake nomad and disturbed1 this is a long war.....
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=292711937258582
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I don't think this can be won at the point of a gun. "Hearts and minds kind of guys" don't authorize torture of people jaded, this is part of the reason why they want us out. We must poison the well of fanaticism And fight smaller battles on a much smaller scale while we keep a lower profile. We can never abandon the situation in Iraq, but we cant let these other factions go un-confronted or interfere with the way the power structure shakes out in Iraq!
"[Iraq], build it up and have bases from which to gain information for the GWOT....we have to be where they are..."
I find it very hard to swallow this argument. The United State had something like 7000 troops at bases in Saudi Arabia from 1993 until they were pulled out in 2003. We were where they were.
thought about it a minute but we had no freedom to move around our military was on the base or flying to protect the no fly zone....this will not be the case in Iraq.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
yeah after reading your original comment again you did mention the ability to gather intelligence- we certainly were NOT doing enough of that
...and Patriot missile technicians are perfectly suited for conducting counter-terrorism missions; after all, it's all soldiers, right? They could have done that in their spare time and still kept up with their primary job of keeping Hussein from slaughtering Kurds and Shi'ites.
(pause)
Kurds.
(pause)
K-U-R... oh, never bloody mind.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I do think capturing/killing Bin Laden would be very important symbolically. It takes away one excuse from the conspiracy theory BDS people. Remember, when most people believe a headline word for word. They don't do the work and critical thinking like Redstaters do.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Right. Skip Normandy, amphibious landings in Bremerhaven, then work south. Ditto all those Pacific island battles - no leadership there.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
bogus wikipedia for anything is criminal because it means nothing....were you attempting to make a point?
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Well from what i've Learned from the last thirty plus years of paying attention to the ME, this sounds about right. I just started posting here and I meant to reply to a post above and clicked wrong link. Your hostile tone makes me wonder if I'll ever post here again, and judging by the average number of comments here its not like this place needs all the people they can get posting so it maybe don't look like so much a waste of space on some server!
From anonymous unverifiable sources?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Most of whom probably never have set foot in the region, let alone learned Arabic and studied the place properly.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I believe What I say about Al Qaeda Because like Nomad13 says, defeating an organization is more realistic then an Ideology. They have to realize if they align themselves with fanatics, they will be defeated!
"realistic" than fighting an ideology but that does not make it true that we are fighting an organization....the ideology is what makes this a multi decade war....hell if it was an organization they would be gone by now.....our military would have defeated them within 1 year in Afghanistan...but it is not so simple because of the ideological "purity" of the Islamic fascism message...they don't want you or me alive and whatever that takes is what they will do...all around the world not just in Iraq.
Iraq was the bonus because we killed so many of the crazies in one place.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
This organization has so many almost independent cells, it's like a hydra, you cut off one head, it grows another. Until we address and understand all the different factions that fall under "Al Qaeda" progress will continue to be slow.
understood and I agree progress will be slow...I believe I already said multi decade....my children will be middle aged when I hope there to be progress...but I am not eve set on that...have you happened to see what they are teaching the next generation? It's the same as the old generations...this is an evil mindset and the religious ferver with that creates the ideology.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
Shiite perform?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1263232.stm
It is quite a bloody event and you really believe that their minds will be changed? I will give you an A for hope, but this and Wahabbism and of course the Mickey Mouse character on on Hamas tv does not give me much hope for that particular part of the GWOT.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
I put my hope in the best damn military in the world!!!!
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
doesn't prepare one to be President... I'm still waiting for Obama to tell everyone about his deep economic experience based on his summer job flipping burgers in high school.
First of all, doesn't Wikipedia cite references for all its facts?
Secondly, I also believe that military might isn't the only solution to every problem--nor is it even plausible for some. Take a look at 'Nam for example. Using only strength for every solution is like living your life solely using reason: there's no color. I mean, we know God exists, but can you unequivocally and logically reason it out?
Lastly, going by our intelligence accuracy these few years in the related areas, nobody can claim to say they know where AQ (or its top echelons) are at any time. But then again, didn't McCain stumble before on whether AQ is Sunni or Shiite?
Hey there spacedunce...I remember your first post here...
And now this...
Defending Wiki?
Bringing up "Nam"?
And then take a swipe at the Bush admin?
And McCain?
If you fall through the Ice ..not alot of people here are going to try to save you.
It's funny to watch Obama trying to stake out a position when the sands are constantly shifting under his feet.
He wants to bring troops home, but he would act "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq" which it has and so he wants to continue to strike al-Qaida targets but he says we took our eye off the ball and should be going after AQ in Afghanistan because after all AQ wouldn't even BE in Iraq if Bush and McCain had not decided own their own to invade Iraq.
I hope that Senator McCain is paying attention to this. I want Obama to be exposed as for the phony he is.