April 27, 2007

US Nabs Top AQ Commander (Updated)

We caught Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi in transit to Iraq a week ago, but the news has just been released. Apparently al-Masri hasn't cut the mustard, as al-Iraqi meant to take over al-Qaeda operations in Iraq and push back against the joint US-Iraq effort (via Mac at Heading Right):

The United States has taken into custody a top al-Qaeda operative who plotted to assassinate Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf and other officials, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday.

Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi, who was taken to the US navy prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba about a week ago, was intercepted while trying to reach Iraq to take over Al-Qaeda operations and to plot attacks from there against western targets outside Iraq, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

He is "one of Al-Qaeda's highest ranking and senior operatives at the time of his detention. He is associated with leaders of extremist groups allied with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and including the Taliban," Whitman said.

It's a good thing we're committed to staying in Iraq, isn't it? Because if we left, then we couldn't catch AQ commanders before they had a chance to get situated in Iraq and start killing people by the dozens.

Oh, wait ...

UPDATE: The Weekly Standard has more:

While in Pakistan, al-Hadi directed cross-border military operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. Al-Hadi also served as a conduit between al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban and al Qaeda senior command operating inside Pakistan. He was behind the assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

"'Abd al-Hadi was known and trusted by Bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri," notes the Department of Defense. He was "in direct communication with both leaders and, at one point, was Zawahiri's caretaker. 'Abd al-Hadi also interacted with other senior al Qaeda planners and decision makers, such as Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Faraj al-Libi, and deceased al Qaeda members Hamza Rabi'a and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Muhajir."

Al-Hadi's capture and subsequent interrogation will likely yield significant intelligence on al Qaeda's global operations, and specifically operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Al-Hadi was a vital link in al Qaeda's global network, who possesses knowledge on al Qaeda's training, communications, personal ties and operations in the critical theaters of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Hadi's knowledge of al Qaeda's command structure inside Pakistan will be of particular interest, as the U.S. believes Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and other al Qaeda senior leaders are operating from command centers in Waziristan and Bajaur.

He'll be valuable if he talks. Either the interrogators got a lot out of him in a week, or they've decided that they can't get anything useful out of him at all. Otherwise, they wouldn't tip off AQ by letting them know he's been captured.

UPDATE II: Via the always-dependable Allahpundit, here's some background that won't surprise anyone but the "reality-based" community:

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was captured by the CIA as he was attempting to travel back to his native country, Iraq. He was going to Iraq, officials say, to “manage” al Qaeda’s operations, including plots on Western interests outside of Iraq.

He was captured by the CIA in late 2006…

During his time with the CIA, Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was interrogated and revealed useful information about al Qaeda plots, which, officials say, have been disrupted as a result.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi had met with al Qaeda members in Iran, officials also said.

So AQ is not only in Iraq but also in Iran. That headline at TalkLeft seems a bit ... outdated. Also, this answers the question about timiing -- they've had him for several months now, and have just transferred him to Gitmo.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Nabs Top AQ Commander (Updated):

» Top Al Qaeda Moved To G’itmo, Looking Forward T0 3 Squares from Pirate's Cove
How soon will the moonbats start to complain about this A senior al Qaeda commander, accused in an assassination plot against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and in attacks in Afghanistan, has been detained by U.S. authorities and transferred to t... [Read More]

Comments (35)

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:35 AM

After a week, al-Qaeda will know that he's either dead or captured--with a US announcement or not. They know he didn't run away to join the circus.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:42 AM

It's a good thing we're committed to staying in Iraq, isn't it? Because if we left, then we couldn't catch AQ commanders before they had a chance to get situated in Iraq and start killing people by the dozens.

It's these after-the-fact justifications that bother me. AQ wasn't exactly swarming into Iraq before the war, but they seem hell-bent on coming in now, even if they no longer have a free hand in the sunni regions.

Frankly, they're more attracted to the U.S. than they are to Iraq per se. They simply don't have the popularity to function in Iraq if we leave or even just leave a remnant of U.S. military to patrol certain regions or train police and military (which I think will be our ultimate exit strategy in Iraq).

In sum, this is the sort of capture that once excited me and gave me the boost to continue supporting President Bush. But now, far too much has happened for me not to simply give a shrug and perhaps a cynical thought on this news.


Posted by NoDonkey [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:45 AM

Give him to the Mossad. He'll disappear for a awhile and they'll get him to sing like a little birdie.

We are winning, even though the terrorists have our absolutely worthless Democrat Party on their side now.

But what the terrorists don't know, is that Democrats fail at everything they do. Giving Al Qaeda our Democrats may be our secret weapon in winning the war on terror.

Here's some more cheer - Pat Dollard's site and CPL Rock with Charlie Company, 1/6 Marines:

"im with 1/6 charlie company and ive been blown up and shot at way too many times
but im not complaining because we have completely turned this place around. it
shows just by the fact that im writting you from a security station that we
built in the middle of the city. right on the corner of racetrack and give me
rd. in oct. we had 3 marines killed on this corner from an IED and now we own
the street and we own the north. my company and my platoon has built 7 OP’s
in the city. i used to see 4 explosions a day from post at the beginning of the
deployment and now i only hear 1 or 2 gunshots a day. we have flushed out every
c********ng insurgent and taken all their weapons. i just thought you would
want to know that we kicked ramadi’s ass.”


I love what Corporal Rock says about Harry Reid. Corporal Rock '08.

Posted by jpe [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:18 PM

Because if we left, then we couldn't catch AQ commanders before they had a chance to get situated in Iraq and start killing people by the dozens.

So why don't we invade the countries of origin? If we invaded Pakistan or Jordon, I'm sure we'd able to capture more.

Why shouldn't we?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 12:42 PM

It's like fighting indians in the wild west.

So, they caught another zombie, huh?

He was on his way from "here" to "there." And, the bill, at the end of the day, is $4 billion dollars per episodic catch.

As to Ma and Pa Kettle; they may look like grandma and grandpa; but their nonchallance is a studied act.

The donks are very serious, now. And, very angry; not at a majority of Americans; but at the "cowboy" in the White House.

And, from the way things look, they're not in a rush to have him tossed out of office, either.

In other words? These are the stories for the next two years. With one side on top. And, the other being reduced to the status of Jimmy Carter.

I'm not sure you can teach a "team" to be on the lookout for the openings you'd get; if you were scouting. And, by scouting I mean by judging how people in a democracy get convinced.

Five years into I-R-A-K, and this is all we get? A "four letter word?"

Where are the successful pictures? And, what would they look like? As soon as our US Navy sat surrounding Japan, General MacArthur was able to show real progress. The Japanese put down their swords. Even giving some of these hundreds of years old relics, to American service people, they saw patrolling the streets.

After catastrophic defeat, the Japanese were very willing to absorb democracy and change. Five years later? Well, by 1950 the Japanese were off their knees. And, climbing back up. All due to the Constitution General Douglas MacArthur pressed on the ruling class.

Now, five years later in I-R-A-K; you see anything?

Did you know the arabs were stealing uncle sugar's money? Promising to build infrastructure. But just laughing in their tents, that it was so easy to fool Americans. And, ya know what else? Iraq has no courts of law. You can't sue anybody for fooling you out of your money.

The biggest fly in the ointment? Well, let's see. Because it's had a variety of labels. From the times, in the 1840's, when the WHIGS reached for it. And, called it Nativism. They were also putting lemmings into the white house. Men who "sympathized" with the south. SO they kept being tossed from office after one term.

This was Lincoln's party, by the way: The WHIGS.

So, if you studied history you'd see how Lincoln was able to take the defeat of his own party; without it pulling him down at all. Instead, it gave him life's lessons.

Here? You could compare this Bush with Jimmy Carter. Both pray a lot. And, that brings up Mort Sahl's wonderful line about Jimmy Carter. "He's annoying God, with all those prayer meetintgs." That's why America lost so much, in terms of prestige, during the Carter years.

I think, though I am not sure, the current idea of those in the GOP who are left; who haven't been tossed from office. Or who ran into problems, where Newt Gringrich and Dick Army added their weight to Hastert; which tossed Tom DeLay ...

You'd get the idea that politics isn't a church ceremony. And, unlike a church, where everybody shouts out hoshanna's together; in the marketplace, and in politics, you get a riot of chaos, and opinions, instead.

So, it's here you've met Ma and Pa Kettle. And, they're not in trouble. They're laying down an argument with a nasty bite to it.

Heck, in Israel, they went through this with their first Lebanon adventure. And, after 10 years of spending treasure, the arabs showed them that nothing helps. And, eventually the Israelis withdrew in one fell swoop. No. They don't regret this! They regretted Olmert not going in and pounding Lebanon to sand last summer.

But Olmert is a good politicians. He knows after the sand-pounding, Israel would stand charged in the media. And, she'd lose, again, on the diplomatic stage. (So in Israel there's a number. When a large number of Jews are killed, then all bets against the arabs are OFF THE TABLE.) They seem to know that. Since you don't really see them exercising military might.

But you do see the terror.

Well, you see car accidents, too. And, no one is suggesting to take away all your cars. The way they suggest to take away guns, ya know?

Again. The Ma and Pa Kettle road show works with ONE PERCENT. Where the 50% is a given to the donks.

The road for the GOP is tougher. The inside number is 37%. And, you can't fill that gap with prayers.

The other shift? Starting with the build-up in the HOUSE OF SAUD, from Bedoin sand fleas, to rish oil zillionaires; you come into contect with the TERROR MACHINERY. Let me explain.

At one time Islam was a safe sort of religion. It had outposts everywhere. Just like the Chinese. And, the Jews. You could go and find them residing in most places on earth. Without them threatening the ruling classes at all. Just hard workers.

But the Saud's changed this. At first, interenally. By "pushing" out the mom and pop imams. Till what you see today; which gets Bush's blessings, is a form of islam that's riddled with terror! And, is still a non-stop operation.

Hard to believe? Why?

When Jews first started going into Israel FROM EUROPE, Poland, and the Pale, in particular; to escape revolutions; they had both positive and negative dealings with arabs. There really was a promise that the two sides could live together. Yes. Even in peace.

Now? Well, that's not to be. Because the terrorists OWN the UN. They're part of the European Union's anti-semitic drive. And, what they have in common? None of them have standing armies.

Just the diplomatic stage.

Where, by the way, Bush also blew it.

For the next two years you're gonna watch the GOP's "erosions." The way Fat AlGore portrays Florida. Soon to join Charlie Tuna under the sea.

Why do lovely beaches erode?

Well, the sands of time, are hit by the tides.

And, Iraq's Gulf War #1 was not a winnah, for George Herbert Walker Bush.

It's not as if Ma and Pa Kettle have pulled their tactics out of a hat.

This is the world of politics.

Not the world of religion. (Though there have been some real humdinger world class religious fights; the one here has not ignited. The rocket ship did not take off.)

And, the way the story seems to be setting? Bush can't win it.

But he can still lose.

In Iraq? Well, I think they're in a panic, now. Maliki thought all he had to do was out-maneuver Bush! Because the Iraqis won't vote to turn the keys of the country over to the Saud's.

Now, however, most Iraqis think "rich people are republicans." But the average American is a democrap. And, if the democraps want to pull out of Iraq? WELL, YOU WON'T GET THOSE ANTI-AMERICAN PARADES! Maybe, that's a good thing?

More Americans than you can count, are disgusted with Iraq. And, many see no progress.

Sure, if you've made a big investment, here, it hurts. But a lot of people are pulling the scales from their eyes. And, they're beginning to recognize that Bush grew a fatter, if not stronger, Wahhabi influence into things. That's not the way it was.

And, it's not the way it could be.

Posted by NewEnglandDevil [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 1:09 PM

Um. No one else sees the connection between the Saudi's rounding up 170 terrorists the same day we announce his capture?

That was the LAST of the operations we stopped through his capture and interrogation.......

At least, I don't believe that it's a huge leap of faith to connect the two.


Posted by unclesmrgol [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 2:18 PM

We either fight them "over there" or we fight them "over here". I know which I prefer.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 2:50 PM

Maybe this is an over-simplistic view of the crisis in the middle-east, but I see so many relevant connections between the War On Terror, and the War on Drugs. Just here me out:

1. Everytime the DEA arrests and brings to justice any drug trafficker or drug lord, he is immediately replaced by someone who thinks he's smart enough and dedicated enough to take over, while avoiding prosecution more effectively than the previous douche bag in control.

2. Instead of money being the motivational factor, fundamentalist, oppositional religious beliefs are the main culprit behind the demand for murderers like al Hadi in the middle-east (a much more potent and powerful mobilizer than money)

3. The War On Drugs was lost before it even began and The War On Terror will continue FOREVER, just like it's druggy cousin. As with the demand for drugs, fundamentalism will never go away (especially if there are people with automatic weapons, helicopters, smart bombs, grenades, grenade launchers, tanks, etc. occupying your country and shooting at you, fueling your hatred) This is just common sense, period.

I would love nothing more than to defeat these SOB's, and liberate Iraqi's from tyranny, but nothing short of the hand of God is going to overcome this impossibility.

Based on these assumptions, for every al-Zarqawi, there will be an al-Saeedi to replace him. For every al-Saeedi, there will be an al-Hadi waiting in the wings for his turn to lead his fellow ideologues into battle.

The war helps to decentralize terrorist groups IN Iraq. It does nothing to stop them from being organized in Pakistan, in Iran, in Syria, or in Saudi Arabia (which is where 95% of the hijackers on 9/11 came from).

This is such a great foreign policy you're all advocating isn't it? It's effective, successful, and fiscally responsible.

By the way... why is the Taliban still alive and kicking in Afgahnistan and bin Laden is no where to be found? 400 billion dollars is a worthwhile price to pay for our war, while we enjoy our hard earned tax cuts (the first time that has EVER HAPPENED in the history of human civilization) and pass our debt off to the next generation of American taxpayers. It all makes so much sense doesn't it?

It's the liberals fault of course.... somehow it is.

Ed, what you're effectively saying is that it's dumb NOT to think that staying in Iraq inevitably forever and ever and ever and ever, arresting terrorist leader after terrorist leader, generation after generation of Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters alike who continue to hate us more and more, every year that we insist on continuing the policing of their country for them.

One more note. Which is more dangerous? An Iraqi insurgent who still remembers a time when the majority of the people in Iraq used to have respect for the United States? Or an Iraqi who was born and raised in a country wrought by chaos, war and destruction, partially (if not entirely) because of a US invasion and failed, horribly mismanaged occupation? Fundamentalists don't just know how to die, they also know how to reproduce.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 2:50 PM

It's these after-the-fact justifications that bother me. AQ wasn't exactly swarming into Iraq before the war, but they seem hell-bent on coming in now, even if they no longer have a free hand in the sunni regions.

Frankly, they're more attracted to the U.S. than they are to Iraq per se. They simply don't have the popularity to function in Iraq if we leave or even just leave a remnant of U.S. military to patrol certain regions or train police and military (which I think will be our ultimate exit strategy in Iraq).

The key phrase is "after the fact" because Mechanical Eye is not arguing the present, but the past. After what fact? Invasion of Iraq. Sadly though that isn't what we're dealing with now is it? One could make an argument that there was no interaction between Al Qaeda and Iraq (though I would refute it) then, but if Al Qaeda is fighting us in Iraq now, and the goal is to fight those that attacked us, then what does it matter what the connections were then, when there is clearly a connection now?
Someone mentioned Darfur and how we should go into Darfur to stop genocide. Al Qaeda has suggested that they woudl fight us there. Now we would say that there is little connection with Al Qaeda to Darfur but if we got there and Al Qaeda started sending in jihadists to fight us there, what would it matter if they weren't there when we went it? If Al Qaeda takes a stand and fights us there, that is the front we fight them on. We don't withrdaw and go to some place where they were three years ago. You're arguing eveyrthing in the past.

Also your notion that we can leave a few people to train IRaqis is farcical. First, wasn't the argument that we didn't send in enough troops as it was. So somehowe one tenth of the troops in the region would do better? And troops wouldn't continue to be trained because there wouldn't be the support to back them up when Al Qaeda started targeting them. If its a choice of training for an army or getting your self blown up and the americans aren't there to provide the support (beause they've bugged out of the country) they will opt for self preserverance over training for the nonexistent govt army that can't protect them. The whole point is,if you remove our prsence there, there will be no political solution because a poloitical solution requires military support to see it through.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 3:05 PM

Right jr. We should invade the country [fill in the blank], because in [fill in the blank], al-Qaeda will come and fight us there instead of here. Spain sounds good, or how about England? They both have high levels of terrorist activity, perfect bait for those terrorists. It won't matter that we invaded them without provocation, because someday al-Qaeda will show up and it'll all be worth it in the end.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 3:23 PM

Did I say we should invade country x for whatever reason? What are you babbling about?
I used Darfur as an example. We wouldn't invade Darfur to wheed out Al Qaeda. We would go into Darfur (and not invade but send in troops to stop a genocide) BUT if in the course of time Al Qaeda joins the battle there, then wouldn't it become part of the war on terror at that point because Al Qaeda chose it as one of its fronts? You could say we brought al Qaeda to Darfur, but if your goal is to stop a genocide AND to fight Al Qaeda around the world would you suddenly withdraw and find some other front to stop a genocide or fight al qaeda?
Going into Iraq is a separate argument than fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq now. Whether or not taking out Sadaam was a good idea or not or how concrete the connnection was, waht's clear is that in the present AL Qaeda is in Iraq. It can't be a distraction from the war on terror, if the goal is to fight Al Qaeda and the primary place you're fighting them is in Iraq.

There were about 50 reasons, all of them valid to take out Sadaam and it was done. NOW the issue is Al Qaeda is trying to fill in the vaccum. If you're suggetsing that we have to fight Al Qaeda now, then you fight them where you find them. If they come to you you fight them there.

Posted by Matt [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:07 PM

You're probably right about the "50 valid reasons"... and if you are, I would counter that there are as many, if not more, common sense reasons why we shouldn't have invaded, some of which hold greater weight than the sum of the majority of the justifications our political leadership sold us in the run up to the war.

You're underlying argument (and you know it) is that the past is somehow irrelevant. Forget about what happened yesterday, because it's old news. Taking that further, why not just invade any arbitrary country tomorrow? After all, April 28th, 2007 will someday be referred to as a date in ancient history. The ends always justify the means because "after the fact" it all worked out to our benefit.

George Tenet (the former CIA director through 2004) just wrote a scathing book criticizing the administration thats about to published this coming monday. Be prepared to hear a lot about the lack of debate that went on in this country before we invaded.

Even George Tenet, the "slam dunk" guy is now openly saying that the administration twisted the evidence on WMD's and that there was a criminal lack of debate about whether or not Saddam was an actual threat to national security to begin with. This debate hasn't even begun, and to say that it's a "distraction" is to say that the past just doesn't matter. It matters because the overall justification for this war should be just as much of a factor in determining how we should proceed in our occupation as is the current terrorist and insurgent presence there.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 4:48 PM

Just because you label someting, it doesn't make it true.

Once? Well, one of the fictions was to slap "happy" in front of the word "marriage." Guaranteed ya nothing. Lots of people were UNhappy. But had nowhere to go, to complain. (Then? Along came Freud. And, he even let ya complain about your mother.)

But everything's individual.

Just like prescriptions for glasses. We're lucky there isn't a law that says there's only one prescription. And, everybody's got ta use it. Heck, this true, because eyeballs are different. Shoe sizes are different.

And, what about the GOP? You want a particular message everyone else adopts?

We have a "war on terror" like we have traffic lights.

While in iraq, a lot of things that were "passing for war efforts; was just giving arabs a chance to steal American money.

Even the exploding devices; which are primitive. Are designed to make us look like monkeys. And, yes, it's sad to see crippled soldiers.

Though I will credit our military with getting better at figuring out how to train. And, keep our troops as safe as possible. In hostile territory.

But it's goofy now to try and pass off this war as successful. As Mr. Slam Dunk, himself, is coming out with a negative book against Bush.

You're happy with Bush?

I think, over time, a lot of folk are no longer all that happy.

And, among those who got unhappy are people who see the sham. See that the Sauds have too close a seat to our man in the White House. And, no matter what we're doing, militarily; we are not making a dent on the Saud's recruitment. Where all the madrasses they could reach, are now funded out of Riyadh. Even American one's.

You haven't heard that the muslim taxi drivers are trying to redefine whom they're willing to pick up, FOR A FEE? Rides' not free.

And, you wonder why so many people fell off the GOP bandwagon, huh?

Today, I finished listening to Tom DeLay's book. His plan? As if he's not even a casualty to Newt Gringrich, Dick Army, and Hastert. As if Pelosi didn't get even with him for daring to have the House impeach Bill Clinton.

At least in his book he admits it. The impeachment? That was God's idea. Then, he says, shows ya what happens when you follow your heart; and your prayers. And, you end up in political hot water. (Impeachment failed to work politically; because there were GOP members who lost their jobs in 1998. James Rogan, out here.)

So, what's the purpose of politics?

What's the purposes of war?

Please don't tell me it depends on the labels you choose to use. Because all the conservatives got is a special interest group. Where they're getting less and less influence.

I doubt if you're going to blow away the ONE PERCENT, the donks achieved. To top off their 50% of the public who votes that way.

Yeah. Even Ma & Pa Kettle aren't losing voters. People are seriously reconsidering if the guy in the White House even knows what he's doing.

You think we're gaining in Iraq? What's the goal?

We will never get a handle on the war on terror, until we tell the Saud's to pick up every madrass they've planted in our country; and to dismantle them. And, take this crap back to Riyadh. Kapish?

Oh, we can't do that, you say? They might get angry. And, then what? Make you pay $3 bucks a gallon for gas? Something tells me the Saudis aren't looking to interferring with their oil sales. Heck, I don't believe that. And, I don't believe we're getting terror from a man in a cave; who has check writing privileges in Switzerland.

As a matter of fact, Bush has managed to lose popularity AMONG REPUBLICANS. Just like his dad did. And, just like his dad found out. Gulf War #1 did NOT make George Herbert Walker Bush's re-election in 1992 "fait-accompli." Quite the opposite. Though the Bush's blame Ross Perot. And, Bill Clinton!

If I have to guess; and that's about what we all do, when we talk about the future. The GOP candidate that will register on the insider's will be like Lincoln was. He was NOT the favorite! But the favorites couldn't capture the country's vote. Only the places where they were the favorite sons.

Today? Dean just went after Guiliani's personal life. (As if Americans reject soap operas!) HA!

If Guiliani manages to get the nomination? It will mean there are experts that think he could bring in the independent, and mainstream voters.

McCain, by the way, has his eye on the same prize.

While the social conservatives, at this dance, have no one to thank but Bush. He prays a lot. But he went in the wrong direction.

Gee. I thought it was women who had the troubles reading maps; and driving at the same time. Trust me, you can still correct this, when you get lost.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:06 PM

Matt, I asked this on a different forum, but go back to prior to Bush. Do you think Clinton wagged the dog? Answer that first. It has a lot to do with the issue because you argue that there was no debate on Iraq, and I look at the past ten years of history in Iraq, with all the resolutions and Oil for food, and sanctions and no fly zones and Iraqi Liberation act and see in fact that a lot of debate was already done By mutliple adminstrations and the consensus was that Iraq had WMD's and was a threat. For you to say they should start the debate over from step one as if no previous history had occured is absurd and ludicrous. The dems had already agreed as far back as 1998 that regime change was necessary. What changed in the interim that would reverse all the consensus? DId Sadaam grow a halo?

As far as Tenet goes, you'll only bring up his name if he says something that bashes Bush, but he could be saying such things to pass the blame on to someone else as much as to set the record straight.

And the past does matter, but the past is the past and the present is the present. Your side tried to state your case that we shouldn't have gone to war and your side lost. We are now at war. Even if we wanted to we couldnt wind back the clock and have a do over. But we were successful in our initial operations and solving the initial problem, getting rid of sadaam. That's done. Whether you agree or not thats not the issue anymore. The isssue now is, we are facing Al Qaeda in Iraq, along with other Baathists trying to either take over Iraq for Al Qaeda, Iran or to reinstute a Baathist regime. And just today we get word that we capture yet another AL Qaeda top dog, along with the nubmers of others we've captured over the course of the last few weeks.

You can talk about the past all you want, but this war or this present moment shall to be in the past someday (say during the next administration). Then someone can look back at your suggested course of actions and say, why on earth would someone suggest leaving THE keybattle ground we're fighting Al Qaeda on if the goal was to fight Al Qaeda. Didn't they realize the consequences of doing so? That they would weaken not only this war we're fighting but also the war in Afghanistan, and by extension any war against al Qaeda going forward?
Your side likes to selectively qoute the Baker Hamilton findings but they all say that were we to leave it would be chaos (it also says that the miiltary solution wont work alone but there needs to be a military presense to get the political process to work). You say that Bush doesn't listen to his generals, but its your side not listening to the generals, and all the generals say that were we to pull out precipitously disaster would ensue.

And again, if the situation between us and Iraq were so copactic to begin with there would never have been a need for sanctions, oil for food, no fly zones, bombings, Iraqi Liberation act. Don't you understand that those are reactions to the threat of Sadaams regime? Those woudn't go away if we didn't take out Sadaam. They wouldn't be festering even further. Sanctiosn would be in even further free fall. Iran would be developing nukes and would look at our inability to hold Iraq accoutable as further evidence that we woudn't hold them accountable. Iraq even if they didnt' have weapons would at least pretend to continue developing weapons as they would have to counter the threat of Iran's actual weapons.
We should have inspected Iraq for weapons? How many times had we already done so to have them continue to defy us. So why then assume that would work when it did before. And even if it did work and we found nothing, would you then suggest that containment should end? Woudn't that mean that Sadaam would rearm himself? That's what Duelfler said that's what Kay said. Thats what common sense would say. Or would you keep containment going indefinitely even though you thought Iraq didn't have weapons. Also, considering Oil For Food turned into the biggest boondoggle in UN's history, how else would you maintain the containment which would ahve to include some sort of pain (ie sanctiosn) to keep Sadaam in line but also we couldn't trust either Sadaam or the UN to administer it, based on the past shenanigans.

Posted by SoldiersMom [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Matt, If you had been President on 9/11, what would you have done? AQ had been at war with the US for 10+ years prior to 9/11, and their attacks continued to escalate.

I'm sure you would say that you would have waged war in Afganistan only. In the Democrat mindset, a plan would have been perfectly executed, no casualties, and today, Afganistan would be a socialists' utopia. I apologize, I'm being sarcastic.

I would like to know, because you seem a reasonable guy, what would you have done if CIC on 9/11.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:50 PM


In your first posting, I counted a total of six question marks. I've come to expect that in most Liberal arguments - lots of sarcastic questions, no solutions, no recommendations.

At the same time your comment:

" I would love nothing more than to defeat these SOB's, and liberate Iraqi's from tyranny, but nothing short of the hand of God is going to overcome this impossibility "

Well, I think i've only heard one thing more absurd than that. And that would be:

*Senator Al Franken (D-MN)*

Of course, my guess is you already have the Al Franken/Sponge Bob Designer Hot Dish Oven Mitts on pre-order, right? Pssst....notice I threw in a question mark there just to make you feel at home , kind of like KosHug :wink:

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 5:50 PM

I also would like to know what Matt and the Trolls would do not just about the past but also the future. Forget Iraq we know they would cut and run no matter what what the consequences. But what about the "real" war on terror and the other war they supported namely Afghanistan.
Lets recap Bush is incomptentent, took his eye off the ball, didn't search for Osama Bin Laden in the Afghani caves, spent too much money, got involved in a quagmire in Iraq while not putting enough feet on the ground in Afghanistan either. And as Cindy Sheehans' group is so fond of saying the Taliban are still there, therefore Afghanistan is a failure.
So we got the talking points from the dems, but what are the trolls suggesting that the democrats are going to do? Redeploy all the troops from Iraq to Afghanistan so they can fight the real war against terror? Strange, I didn't hear much about how we should escaplate the battle in Afghanistan from any of the candidates. Are the dems willing to commit more troops, in effect escalate the war in Afghanistan, so that they can fight the real war on terror?
But wait a second, Iraq lasted too long as its been longer than world war II, but Afghanistan lasted even longer than Iraq so are dems going to commit to say five more years in Afghanistan. Or are they going to cut and run in Afghanistan too. Then, they were liars when they said that they would do the job better and would search for Osama and fight the real war. It sounds a lot like OJ searching for the real killers after being acquited. How's that coming these days?

And if the democrats decide to escalate, does that mean whoever supports the war but doesn't serve is now a chicken hawk? Are all the dems who were pilloring the evil neocons now going to go enlist in what will obviously turn into a quagmire leading to the death of our boys? Are they going to spend billions and billions more in Afghanistan trying ot remove once and for all the taliban and find Al Qaeda, or is the price already too high? Are they going to keep the soliders there forever or seemingly forever and have the nightly news broadcast each and every kill and maminig by car bomb. What if we're involved in the middle of the civil war between Karzais forces and the Taliban and we become the target? What then?

The problem for the dems is they've been arguing out of all sides of their mouths becuase they aren't responsible for anything. And they're the party of sedition.

However how quickly and easy it will be to turn the smarmy rhetoric, and that's all it is, back on the dems.

Say Obama gets in power, is he going to escalate the war in afghanistan and risk all the quagmire? Then people will see that in fact, all the criticism was just invective all along. Half the dems can't even acknowledge hat there is a threat at all. Half of them slander bush into saying that everyithing done was done to hype a nonexistent threat. Remember when prior to the election they were accusing Bush of having Osaam all along and holding him for political reasons. No basis for sayign that obviously but don't but it past mcarthyite demagogues of the dems caliber. But of course, if dems take power what then?
If they escapalte in Afghanistan then all the war mongering talk will be proven to be a lie and they will be the warmongers kiliing more of our boys for something that cant be achievable. And if they withdraw from Afghanistan then they will rightfully be accused of being soft on security and incapable of winning wars against actual threats. Then we can trot out Richard Perle's testimony about how the bush administration was igoring the true theat of Al Qaeda, and show that the dems can't even fight the real threat, evidenced by their refusal to commit to the real war on terror that Bush supposedly took his eys off off.

Their position is being caught between a rock and a hard place, and I fraknly am looking forward to watching them squirm in the spotlight.

Posted by Jeffrey Carr [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 7:10 PM

Pulling conventional forces out of Iraq will have little or no effect on the operations that led to the capture of this AQ leader and many others. That's being prosecuted by the Special Operations Command, who will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan even after our conventional forces leave.

Bottom line - this is certainly a worthy success, but it's wrong to point to it as a success of our conventional forces or a reason not to establish a withdrawal timetable.

Posted by AnonymousDrivel [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 7:56 PM

RE: Jeffrey Carr (April 27, 2007 07:10 PM)

Pulling conventional forces out of Iraq will have little or no effect on the operations that led to the capture of this AQ leader and many others. That's being prosecuted by the Special Operations Command, who will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan even after our conventional forces leave.

The assets in theater are complementary. Each component contributes to the overall objective and fills in gaps for the other. For example, if conventional forces drive out or dilute Al Qaeda in one region, Special Ops can more readily locate and optimize their operations elsewhere. It's all one giant package... even the humanitarian activities (i.e. non-combat missions) to win hearts and minds - the political component of war. If the Iraqis trust conventional forces, they'll report to foot soldiers those outsiders who threaten stability. Conventional forces can then parley that info to the Special Ops into an actionable plan to optimize men, machine, and time if they themselves lack the special tools needed to capture/kill a cell. Right now, we need everything so that the most pointed and humane options may be utilized.

...Bottom line - this is certainly a worthy success, but it's wrong to point to it as a success of our conventional forces or a reason not to establish a withdrawal timetable.

Why? Don't you think conventional forces contributed to the end result even if tangentially so? It's all the same team. And why announce some arbitrarily selected date for withdrawal in the most accusatory and defeatist manner on as big a stage as possible? There's nothing magical about the dates selected by the Democrats except as the political theater to undermine this nation and to time exodus with domestic election timetables, not military ones.

At some point, we'll leave Iraq. That's a given no matter the idiocy of the fringe who claim colonialism, hegemony, "blood for oil", etc. as the stake in the sand that ties us to that nation. But there is no need to politicize the timetable in such a manner that can only aid our enemies. Set flexible goals until the engagement is complete such that our nation is secured and Iraq stabilized. I'm certain the military has designed such a contingency. Under the auspices of responsible leadership from both parties, let the plan proceed, adjust accordingly, and don't politicize the effort. Keep the enemy as blind as possible since the worst agitators and our biggest threat monitor domestic political gamesmanship more than our own voters. Why provide them such a spectacle to place in their quivers? We can only lose if propaganda wins... and by we, I mean all Americans and not just one particular party. Frankly, it's pretty apparent that Democrats on the whole think that failure in Iraq/Afghanistan hurts only Bush/Republicans. Think again.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 8:46 PM

I'm surprised Capt. tries to claim the "reality based" community doesn't acknowledge Al Qaeda in Iraq. I do not think any mainstream progressive or democrat has said Al Qaeda is not in Iraq. Rather, they state the problem is overwhelmingly with sectarian violence, and AQ is only partly responsible. Moreover, I sure hope this isn't trying to say AQ was there before the invasion, with any substantial infrastructure - Anymore than, say, AQ had in America.

BTW - Numbers out tomorrow purportedly state terrorist attacks worldwide climbed 40 percent from last year - progress?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:12 PM

Well, I guess there are people who love to swing around the word "troll" as if it was a baseball. Doesn't hit anything. It's made of hot air.

One of the frustrations people have today is that some people think Bush is on the right track. And, others think he's a nincompoop.

None of us are close enough to the rooms he's in. But from books I've read, Tenet won't be the first to say Bush doesn't listen. That charge was made by Paul O'Neill.

Other people seem to think they can go back and make an argument using Bill Clinton. Why? Those years are over, now. And, Clinton survived impeachment. The HOUSE members who were involved with impeaching him, however, have been tossed out of their jobs.

Quite a list. If you wanted to compare how Americans react. And, how the policies on the right "didn't quite pan out."

Of course, DeLay, in his book says ... he forced the House to go for impeachment of Bill Clinton, because God told him it was the right thing to do.

And, yes. It seems there are people who are confusing their religious beliefs with politics.

Heck, Lincoln didn't belong to any church. When others campaigned against him, they held up to the light that he was a non-member. But it didn't matter. Within the framework of what living Americans at that time knew, they voted for Lincoln. And, then, what followed were hard times. Until "stuff" got put to rest. Including Emancipation.

The WHIG party, however, died.

And, then I guess it all depends on how you measure things. It seems the GOP has less voters in its camp, these days. And, there could be various reasons why these ups and downs, happen.

Trolling? You're blaming trolling? What a waste of time!

By the way, Al's-Kay-Duh isn't coming out of a cave in Afghanistan, either. It's a phenomenon from the Saud's. Who fund the terrorists, as we know them.

How does terrorism work, here? The imams, installed by the House of Saud, after pushing out "mom & pop" imams, around the globe; recruit lunatics. Who believe that to die exploding like a dope, while killing Americans; or even better, Jews, puts you in paradise. We don't see it. But we're not reading this bullshit in its "original language," either.

In order to be believed, you have to say things that are believable ... even when you leave your group. And, go about in this world. Bush, as yet, has not closed the sale, that I-R-A-K is anything but a 4-letter word. And, we haven't exactly "slipped" democracy into the heads of the arabs.

The House of Saud wouldn't let us.

And, General Douglas MacArthur is dead.

In the world of the possible, I think what Ma and Pa Kettle are doing, has "success" written all over their endeavors. They are endeavoring to make Dubya look very small. No matter how you try to write the letter "dubya" bigger than others; it's tacked on at the end. And, it flies with z's. Z's. The letter you use to represent snoring.

By the way, in pews? Some people just fall asleep. In our day and age, the ministers, priests, and rabbi's, are just glad you're showing up!

You'd think, too, since religion really isn't selling a majority of Americans on "how to vote," it might be worth looking at what drives large numbers of people.

Me? I figured out that Bush is the Realtor for the Saud's. And, while there's no honest information coming even from Tony Blair; you can somehow figure out that Bush is being treated as a guy with very bad breath. Nobody's talking, though.

Maybe, that's what tipped me off?

I knew Olmert. And, Livni. And, Amir Peretz. Did the strangest diplomatic dancing last summer.

One reason? Nasrallah's missiles killed fewer Jews, than those that died in traffic accidents. As a matter of fact, those missiles were so indiscriminate, they killed more cows, than anything. And, the numbers of dead? 15 arabs. 15 Jews.

And, Olmert KNEW he could not go into Beirut, and pound the place down to sand. After the media lied about damage. Turns out Nasrallah's goons, free to roam in Beirut, have made it nearly impossible for businessmen to open their shops. This is true, even with the French enscounsed, now, in Southern Lebanon.

Did you notice, with America fighting in Iraq, the Israelis didn't think it was necessary to open a second front?

You're worried about what happens among arabs? They're only concerned with how they can get the better ends of all the deals they make with us.

Now, Ma and Pa Kettle has scared the living daylights out of Maliki. Bush couldn't.

Anyway, the ONE THING to notice, if we remove ourselves from Iraq, AND WE ARE NOT DOING THIS AT ALL! The thing that could happen? Saddam was only one guy. But the Iraqis, on their own, pushed into Kuwait, like it was a knife going through butter.

Yes. WE CAN STOP THE IRAQI's from creaming the Kuwaitis, again.

If that's what you want us doing, then Bush should make that argument.

Otherwise? No big pieces of cake for the Saudis. Let alone the keys to Iraq!

No, why, exactly, have the Saud's gotten a free pass? Because we got 9/11 from a cave man? People who say that just haven't seen the facts.

Oh, and one of my Arik Sharon stories. Arik Sharon HATED James Baker! Every time, George Herbert Walker Bush tried to push the Israelis; Arik Sharon, with his minister's portfolio; would go into the West Bank, and drop a settlement. I think by the time Bush #41 left office; Arik Sharon's count was up to 21.

Now? James Baker wants them to leave those spots. Bush told Baker that Olmert is weak. Which isn't quite true. But Arik Sharon is in a coma. And, that's about where Bush is, too. When you try to appraise his "progress" in a part of the world, where the Israelis are very, very proficient.

The Israelis are probably waiting to see whom we elect next.

The other number to watch? The seats in Congress. Because? How do you think politics works? Coming in 2008, the GOP has 25 senators running again. But the donks only have 12 seats up for grabs.

I know. I know. Math's tough. But don't ignore it.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:23 PM

Our commanders in Iraq estimate that AQ makes up FIVE PERCENT OF THE INSURGENCY. Hunt them down like dogs and kill them, but the sectarian divide is the bigger problem in Iraq. And how long will it take Al Queda to replace that guy? Like the suicide bombers there, there seems to be an unlimited supply. Yet people bash the dems for wanting to get out of that killing field. So the sectarian militias can kill each other, but they can't defend their own country from foreign jihadists? Thats lunacy. We could stay for 100 years, the Shia and Sunni would still have their civil war after we left. Its THEIR destiny. Whatever side wins will turn around and hunt down the foreign jihadists and put their heads on stakes. Iraq has survived for 7000 years WITHOUT US, I'm sure they'll be fine when we leave. We can fight AQ WITHOUT occupying countries, wake up.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 9:51 PM

conservative democrat:

Let me respond by point:

1. If you recall, the initial "insurgency" attacks in Iraq were done mainly by Sunni Baathists loyal to Saddam - i think the world was amazed at the constraint the Shia majority showed in NOT responding in like.

2. It was only after the Golden mosque bombing in Samarrah that the Shia sect retaliated against Sunni (and that was Sadr's doing) ...but WHO bombed the Samarrah site? Al Queda. It was planned to start the sect. violence.

3. The whole time during all of this, it was obvious that in all of Iraq, the most dangerous area as Anbar province. Why? Because al Queda owned it.

4. Subsequently, al Queda has literally been cleansed out of Anbar so al Queda moves East into Baghdad - results? Bombings of the Iraqi government building in Baghdad and the bridge bombing - done by Al Queda.

5. The most recent large scale bombing, the one in Diyalah, that killed the 10 U.S. troops...again , Al Queda.

It's my contention that 80% of the violence, murder, bombings and suicide attacks in Iraq is being accomplished by:

a) Al Queda in Iraq
b) Iranian sponsored Shias - a "division" of Sadr's militia that split off and trained in Iran

So....the REAL enemy in Iraq is al Queda and Iran.

We have an opportunity to push al Queda east out of Baghdad and confine most of them to Diyalah - that is the spot where they should all perish - those that flee have to enter Iran and perhaps some won't be lucky there either.

There is NO civil war in Iraq. There is an orchestrated attack on sect civilians in Iraq by al Queda and Iran and if you say that the U.S. should leave and let Al Queda continue, and let Iran continue their push into Iraq, well....I have to simply call you reckless and misinformed.

Posted by Mwalimu Daudi [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:14 PM

Numbers out tomorrow purportedly state terrorist attacks worldwide climbed 40 percent from last year - progress?

Ah - it is ck of "WMDs in Iraq are not really WMDs" fame again. Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down and the terrorists are losing support among the population, so you want to move the goalposts to maintain the illusion of impending defeat.

And remember ck - your side doesn't want to fight terrorists in Iraq. Something tells me that you don't want to fight them elsewhere either.

Or have you changed you mind and decided that we are the world's policeman after all?

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:18 PM

Real interesting articles up at DEBKA. Yes, I know. Rarely right on target; but sometimes in the right room.

Anyway, the Saud's arrested 172-IRANIAN operatives; who were gonna blow apart the Saudi oil fields.

Do you get the impression that Bush is being pushed to attack Iran, now?

I know it won't be a war. It would be a bombing raid.

Well, can anything worse befall Bush, now? That's one of the things about tanking numbers; you reach a point and you don't hit rock bottom. But you reach those people who'd support ya.

And, Bush isn't running for re-election.

Perhaps, that's what's next? A "move" on Iran. Perhaps, a "fly-over?" Why bother with putting troops on the ground? Those people don't like us, anyway.

And, when people ask about the Mideast; separate from looking like years later we haven't exactly progessed to a place where democracy really seeds ...

What happens if a "little shaking up in Iran" puts Abner Dinnerjacket out of commission?

I mean? Why would Bush wait? He's arleady broken that tabu. (Where we'd wait to get hit, first.)

What would a step like that do?

In for a dime. In for a dollar.

Not that we can test "who got captured." The photo of the "Al-Quada leader" looks like someone who buses tables. They've got lots of those "over there." And, most of them are unemployed.

Well, who knows? But Bush IS a man of action. And, so we may see an air force display. Basing my instinctual response to this, on what DEBKA is reporting, as stuff the Saud's are up to.

well, doesn't something have to give?

Posted by scrapiron [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:19 PM

Letting AQ know one of their leaders has been captured is simply a warning, "Your time is coming". These captures aren't by accident, We have intel in they're operations, and it has to be one of the high level leaders since the grunts are too stupid to walk and breathe at the same time. Sort of like a democrat. Another thing similiar is the way the AQ leaders always throw up their hands and surrender. Yep, they're part of the democrat party. Send them a white feather.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:26 PM

ck wrote: Numbers out tomorrow purportedly state terrorist attacks worldwide climbed 40 percent from last year - progress?

Kind of makes you wonder then when nearly more than half of the candidates who are running for president, when asked at the presidential debates if there is a global war on terror don't raise their hand. I
ts too bad that the terrorists feel that there is global terror war on the world. Its too bad al qaeda feels that Iraq is part of the war on terror, in fact the key front for them. But what do they know, they're just Al Qaeda.

Sounds like those dems are just a weeee bit out of touch.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 10:36 PM

Now that we have Iraqis, including Sunni tribes, fighting al Qaeda those of us who understand the threat of Islamic Fascism appreciate that this is an opportunity to be taken advantage of and not shunned by premature withdrawal from a winnable war.

And congratulations on the knockout Fight4The Right. Wake up yourself CD. You've obviously given no thought to the likely consequeces of withdrawal. I suggest a visit to the Weekly Standard where Gerecht has an article on the subject. Or visit Power Line.

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:00 PM

First response is to jr565 -
I believe the argument is that this administration's policies are creating more terrorists than they are killing or capturing. Therefore, in essence, causing the global war on terror they advocated.

Mwalimu Daudi - Not sure who you are, or where you think my fame came from - I suppose you might be referring to the chemicals we found that were way past their expiration date, and therefore had no "mass destruction" aspect to them. Maybe you are disputing that - who knows - But believe me, the posters here dislike me for much more than that - =)
But, on to your next assertion - You say terrorist attacks are down? Please provide a citation, and tomorrow I'll provide you with one that disputes that- The latest one - We've heard for quite some time that attacks are decreasing, but alas, it's all been political posturing.

btw - We cannot be defeated - The war was won. What we don't want to happen is a futile effort costing thousands more lives only to, in the end, leave Iraq the way it is right now. If we can't seem to make progress, and we won't send a couple hundred thousand more troops there, then we have to be realistic and keep our casualties to a minimum.

Mr. Daudi, your arguments, or lack thereof, are hardly reasonable. Since when is it that we will be fighting sunni and shia in the U.S? Because that's the main problem in Iraq - And as worldwide terrorism statistics indicate, we have only created more terrorism with our alleged war on terror. There is a better way than just sending a big army in.
I know you guys rail on trying to catch the terrorists with intelligence agencies and cooperation amongst worldwide intelligence. But there is a very valid reason this should be the preferred method - Mainly, we won't create a crapload more terrorists trying to catch a few. And also, we won't provide them with training grounds to hone their skills.

I suppose though, you'll dismiss this as rubbish and continue on the path that has led to dramatic upswings in terrorism worldwide - why? I dunno, maybe you just can't accept other points of view.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:11 PM

The Pentagon said today it has taken custody of one of Al Qaeda’s most senior members, an experienced operational commander who has been active in Afghanistan and Pakistan and was headed for his home country of Iraq when captured.

The Defense Department and U.S. intelligence officials would not say where Abd Hadi Iraqi was captured, or by whom, but said he was handed over to the CIA in late 2006 and has been providing critical information about Al Qaeda.

“This was a very important capture. He was one of Al Qaeda’s highest-ranking and experienced senior operatives,” said U.S. Army Col. Gary L. Keck, a Pentagon spokesman. “He had been one of the organization’s key paramilitary commanders in Afghanistan, and we know he was in direct communication” with Al Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri, and perhaps Osama bin Laden.

But, but, but, Al Qaeda and Iraq have nothing to do with each other, right? OOPS!

Al-Hadi rose to the rank of Major in Saddam Hussein’s army before moving to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union.

More here.

Yes, liberals, that’s going to leave a mark. “Secular” Saddam having ties with Al Qaeda. Unthinkable.

[EDIT: Just for good measure a flashback to the last Democratic President telling us about AQ’s ties to Iraq:

Clinton told King: “People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons.”


Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990’s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.


That and the connection between terrorism sponsor Osama bin Laden and Sudan’s “military industrial complex” were enough to convince the United States that the Shifa plant was involved in chemical weapons production, the official said.


Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons development. (Polipundit)

Posted by ck [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 27, 2007 11:28 PM

Man Keemo, its been awhile - But buddy, the WMD thing is dead - You guys are beating a dead horse. It's been verified over and over again that Iraq and AQ did not have an operational relationship - Even if one man apparently Iraqi, did join AQ. I suppose the three guys caught in Columbus, Ohio working for AQ mean that the U.S. and AQ have an operational relationship?
And its been verified that Iraq did not have an operational use of WMD at the time of the invasion, regardless of if Clinton thought so too (I think Clinton had an agenda too) - These are not things you can change with a few sporadic stories -

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 12:43 AM

From ck:First response is to jr565 -
I believe the argument is that this administration's policies are creating more terrorists than they are killing or capturing. Therefore, in essence, causing the global war on terror they advocated.

Except there was terrorism and Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda throughout the world prior to 9/11 and our war in both Iraq adn Afghanistan occured after we had already had the WTC and Pentagon attacked, as well as countless other attacks AROUND THE WORLD. Don't remember many lefties spouting on about the Intelligence Estimates of whether terrorism was increasing after Al Qaeda was successful in waging the attack against the great satan. But I do remember that Osama was the most popular name in the Islamic world right after the atttack. Do you think just for a second that maybe terrorism would go up if Al Qaeda was successful too?
Nothing succeeds like success. You should know that. It's common sense. Therefore you'd have to recognize that the more successful Al Qaeda is, the more terrorists will flock to their cause. (Which is one reason why giving Iraq over to both Al Qaeda and Iraq will in fact increase terrorism exponentially.

Now you say fighting Al Qaeda in fact increases Al Qeada's strength. Well so does, apparently allowing them to be successful in their operations of taking down western targets.

Are you suggesting that if we had just kept our attacks concentrated in Afghanistan that in fact terrorism would have gone down? What is so special about our involvement in Iraq as opposed to our involvement in occupying Afghanistan that is increasing terrorism. Can you say with certainty that it's Iraq and Iraq alone that is causing this increase, or could it be that we are in Afghanistan, another ME country. Can you tell me the percentage that terrorism went up because of our involvent in Iraq verses our involvement in Afghanistan versus our capture of Al Qaeda leaders, versus our support of Israel, versus our support of England, versus our alliance with any regime that Al Qaeda doesn't like. OF course you can't. Because its a scurillous baseless argument that your'e bringing up.
Also, is every attack that any terrorist does around the world tied into our involvment with Iraq? What about bombings in Bali. Are those all because of Iraq, or could it be that there's some homegrown reason for the attacks. Was Theo van gogh killed because of Iraq or maybe its because the Dutch published the cartoons depicting Mohammad in a bad light.
Is every bombing even Al Qaeda?

Or maybe, just maybe there is an increase in terrorism around the world because the world is engaging Al Qaeda and pushing back and they are trying not to be destroyed as a movement. We're pushing and they're pushing back. Of course, even if we weren't pushing back that's not to say that Al Qaeda woudln't continue pushing anyway. And this is self evident in that before we pushed back they were planning 911 and any number of other attacks around the world.

Al Qaeda has objectives. The more they succeed at their objectives the more powerful they become. If we are not there to combat them they will still push forward because they are trying to achieve their goals, many of which involve destroying us and all infidels around the world. But if we do push back they will also push back against us because they don't want to be destroyed as a movement and the harder we push the more they will push as much as they are able.

Our policies are what they're reacting to. Why then did Richard Clarke say that the biggest threat to the US would end up being Al Qaeda, and his great outrage which the left milked while he was the critic du jour was that Bush ignored the threat. Well then that suggests that in fact terrorism was increasing around the world, that Al Qaeda's influence was increasing around the world prior to Bush.

So what then should the policies be after having the WTC knocked to the ground and the Pentagon bombed? You seem to suggest that any response to Al Qaeda whatsoever will in fact increase terrorism.

OF course saying the admins policies caused this is the typical lazy thinking characteristic of the left. Never actually mention which policies.
It was our policy of containment which required us to station troops in Saudia Arabia that aroused the ire of Al Qaeda in the first place. Didn't that increase terrorism? So peace increases terrorism (and if you want to maintain containment you with YOUR policy it would cause more jihadis to flock to the cause) and war against Iraq bring terrorism, and fighting Al Qaeda brings terrorism because Al Qaeda is fighthing for its life, and not fighting terrorism increases terrorism because it allows Al Qaeda to grow stronger.

Essentially Al Qaeda is at war with us and has been for years. And people like you are oblivious to that fact. Whether we are nice or not nice or want to fight or not fight Al Qaeda will fight us. The only solution is to destroy them. Destroy their leaders, when they regroup destroy them again. Discredit them here there and everywhere. If you think its easy you have unrealistic expectations. But your attitude is like suggesting that the reason the mafia exists is because police are fighting crime.

Posted by jr565 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 1:38 AM

ck also wrote:
Man Keemo, its been awhile - But buddy, the WMD thing is dead - You guys are beating a dead horse. It's been verified over and over again that Iraq and AQ did not have an operational relationship - Even if one man apparently Iraqi, did join AQ. I suppose the three guys caught in Columbus, Ohio working for AQ mean that the U.S. and AQ have an operational relationship?
How has it been verified over and over? The only verification done was by the 9/11 comission which should hardly be the end point of the investigation. Stephen Hayes and others wrote a bunch of articles that document many ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda which are far more indepth than the 9/11 committees findings. And even the 9/11 committee findings found instances of Iraq and Al Qaeda meeting, they just couldn't find links of direct involvement in operations. But the fact that they found links of meetings and not direct operational ties. So we know they met at various times. What were they talking about, importing cotton candy?

Also, its not like the guy we just found is Joe Shmoe from Iraq(unllke, say the 19 hijackers from 9/11 who were otherwise nondescript Muslims from saudi Arabia. He was a major in Sadaam's army who then went to fight with Al Qaeda for 15 years. Do we have any intel on any meetings between him, say and his former buddies in Iraq? Even if we don't have it, does that mean there wasn't or that we simply unable to find it as of yet. Was he a conduti between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Notice also prior to coming back to Iraq to fight us he was in Iran where he had met some Al Qaeda buddies. So not only was this guy in Iraq but also in Iran and Al Qaeda.

And its been verified that Iraq did not have an operational use of WMD at the time of the invasion, regardless of if Clinton thought so too (I think Clinton had an agenda too) - These are not things you can change with a few sporadic stories -

Its also been verified that trucks and planes with equipment were moved to Syria. Its also verified that many sites were looted to the ground and all equipment moved. Duelfler said that they couldnt find the stockpiles but that Iraq maintained the programs and as soon as sanctions were lifted could be up and running in an extremely short period of time.
Also, you say clinton had an agenda too. Do you think he, and Al Gore wagged the dog to stem the scandal with Monica Lewinsky? Did the UN also have an agenda in sanctioning Iraq over and over? Did all the democrats have an agenda when they signed off on the Iraqi Liberation Act? Who didn't have an agenda?
Finally, if Clinton had an agenda, and Gore was in the Clinton administration, essentially taking the roll of Cheney and Clinton and Gore essentially wagged the dog,then my question is, why oh why, knowing this would so many democrats vote for Al Gore and be so outraged that the election was stolen from him? Why make such a point about how Gore won the popular vote? Not only does it make Clinton and Gore and the UN and the Congress look pretty bad, it also makes the dems who tried to keep the Clinton legacy alive by electing the vice president of the admin that had such a craven agenda look pretty petty. And of course as I mentioned in a previous post, half the dems who are now spkeaing out about how they were duped into thinking Iraq had WMD's and posed a threat were still in congress when Clinton was in power and obviously going along with the agenda. And you want to talk about lying administrations? Please. At least, if Bush is lying he's sticking to one consistent lie. The dems lie about Iraq and contain Iraq and sanction Ira and call for regime change of Iraq, then go in lockstep to oust Sadaam (which is in line with their Liberation act they must have forgot they signed in 1998) and try to use it to show they are strong on defense, then when they put their finger to the wind have the gall to say they were duped by Bush of all people into believing that Sadaam was a threat. It's so outrageous it reminds me of the movie Identity where the dual personalities of a a psycho are fighting amongst themselves and one of thems a killer only they don't realize that they are really all figments of one persons imagination. Thats how preprosterous the dems lies are in this regard.

For my part, I'm not quite so cynical. I dont think Clinton wagged the dog. I think he bombed Iraq and sanctioned Iraq and signed the Iraqi Liberation Act because he genuinely believed that Iraq was a threat. And the dems went along with him then because they too genuinely KNEW that Sadaam was a threat and would never comply. And the UN went along with all the resolutions becuase they KNEW that Sadaam was continuing to not comply and thus containment needed to be pursued.I'll give them that much credit. Of course since you are speaking from the left, and most likely are a defender of the UN or at least are mad because Bush waged war unilaterally (in your opinion) and not through the auspices of the UN, it does make me wonder why the UN would be held in any regard by you whatsoever.

Posted by sam pender [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 5:15 AM

Ok, first, Iraq WAS swarming with terrorists before the war, and to deny that is to believe pure political lies. Second, has anyone else noticed the AQ roundup in the UK just before this was released and the AQ roundup in Saudi all happen (looking at HUNDREDS of AQ terrorists set to strike, and rounded up all within about 100hrs of this press release about al-hadi al-Iraqi. Purely coincidence I'm sure-NOT.

Posted by Keemo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 28, 2007 6:47 AM

Full Name: Nashwan Abdulrazaq Abdulbaqi
Aliases: al-Hadi al-Iraqi, Abu Abdallah
Nationality: Iraqi
Age: 35 to 40 years old
Place of Birth: Northern Mosul
Military Experience: Major in Saddam Hussein’s army
Eye Color: Green/blue/hazel
Hair Color: Brown
Height: 5’11” (180 cm)
Weight: 220 lbs. (100 kg)
Comments: Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi has a mustache and a long, heavy beard that is starting to gray. He has a fair complexion.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi is one of Usama bin Laden’s top global deputies, personally chosen by bin Laden to monitor al Qaeda operations in Iraq. Al-Hadi was the former Internal Operations Chief for al Qaeda. He has been associated with numerous attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and has been known to facilitate communication between al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda. Al-Hadi rose to the rank of Major in Saddam Hussein’s army before moving to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union. He has a reputation for being a skilled, intelligent, and experienced commander and is an extremely well-respected al Qaeda leader. He has commanded numerous terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Al-Hadi is reportedly still in contact with Usama bin Laden.


Clinton's comments took other Democrats by surprise, many of whom have questioned whether the Bush administration misled the public about the threat from Saddam Hussein. The uranium claim was made at a time Bush was trying to rally world support for military action against Iraq and was used to suggest that Saddam was acting on his nuclear ambitions.

Wednesday, some members of the Clinton administration indicated they didn't agree with their former boss's take on the controversy.

"In some critical respects, intelligence was overstated, and it's important for the administration to resolve these questions," said Sandy Berger, the national security adviser under Clinton.

He said Bush needs to have a news conference to fully explain how the claim about uranium made its way into the nationally televised address, despite CIA concerns about the quality of the intelligence.

Former Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta agreed. Unless Bush appears before the America people, the "drip, drip, drip is just going to continue."

But former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright didn't sound so sure. "The most important thing is to move forward," she said. "I agree with President Clinton on that."

The three came to the Capitol Wednesday to present a foreign policy paper at the request of Senate Democrats.

Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

Stephen Hadley

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."


Read this one very closely....