« Stupid name-calling | Main | The land of the rising rocket »

Al Qaeda's Plot to Attack America

According to ABC News, al Qaeda in Iraq planned to get operatives into America the same way the September 11 hijackers got into America, with student visas.

Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.


Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

[snip]

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas -- the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.

U.S. officials now require universities to closely track foreign nationals who use student visas to study in the United States. University officials must report international students who fail to arrive on campus or miss class regularly.

Will the anti-war leftists actually try to argue that al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't have even considered this plot if we hadn't gone into Iraq first? That's the argument they use for everything that goes wrong in this world today, conveniently forgetting that we were attacked on September 11, 2001, without having done anything except live our lives. The same applies to the embassy bombings in Africa, the Cole bombing, as well as the first World Trade Center bombing.


Comments (58)

Initial solution is simple,... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Initial solution is simple, ban all foreign students.

"Will the anti-war leftists... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Will the anti-war leftists actually try to argue that al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't have even considered this plot if we hadn't gone into Iraq first? "

Nice chicken or egg argument. There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" until Al-Zaqawi, and OBL formed an association in 2005.

Why argue that point at all... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Why argue that point at all. Who cares, the fact seems to be that they are trying to do this now.

Let's face it, our immigration policies leave the doors wide open for exploitation by any number of terrorists trying to gain access to the U.S. Something Bush and the Congress clearly have not taken too seriously.

I guess you forgot about th... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I guess you forgot about the March 2006 NIE on Global Terrorism findings:

"says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," one US intelligence official said

KimBarney beat me ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Kim

Barney beat me to that, but his point is the flaw in your argument. In spite of Cheney's and others' false claims that there was a link between Saddam and AQ, there would unlikely have been any Iraqi/AQ plan to breech the US w/ students. Altho, there might well have been similar AQ plots contrived from other locations. AQ hardly needed a presence in Iraq to plot such conspiracies. So your point is null and clearly no justification for Bush's war of choice.

What you fail to observe is that the Bush/Cheney claim that we're fighting AQ in Iraq so that we don't have to wage the fight here at home is just another piece of neo-con BS. It's obvious that the Iraqi war has done nothing to deter AQ fromplanning to hit the US at home.

Another Bush/Iraqi war justification down the toilet!

I trust that none of your erudite commenters will attempt some lame claim, that, if the US wasn't fighting in Iraq, we wouldn't have uncovered the latest AQ plot. Such an argument would only be another version of "chicken and egg." Anyone making such an argument would then have to justify why we should not be at war w/ most countries around the world so that we would have the similar vantage point to uncover AQ plots, no matter where they might be hatched.

Ferreting out sleeper cells... (Below threshold)
groucho:

Ferreting out sleeper cells and preventing the illegal entry of those who would harm our country should always have been the main front in the "War on Terror", not a desert hell on the other side of the world, where we are squeezed into the middle of a civil war.

Kim, you may have been "living your life" on Sept 11, the same as most of us were, but other Americans were living theirs by meddling in and manipulating the politics of foreign cultures in the hopes of achieving strategic and monetary gain, same as they've been doing for decades. This activity has created a large number of passionate enemies for US to deal with. Invading Iraq was never going to thwart these enemies; many even think it may have made them stronger.

A news story that seems to desperately take another stab at conflating 9/11 with Iraq terror, etc. (at least to Kim and the rest of the equally desperate loyal Bushists) is released on the day of the State of The Union address...aw, probably just a coincidence.

I sure glad no one was trac... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I sure glad no one was tracking my college attendance my first couple of years in college...
I am glad the Dems were able to push through adherence to 9/11 Commission recommendations..
along with checking more cargo...
We must remain vigilant, and concerned, but not afraid...

There was no "al Qaeda i... (Below threshold)

There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" until Al-Zaqawi, and OBL formed an association in 2005.

Posted by: BarneyG2000

If that even mattered, prove it. Fact is, though, that it doesn't matter. There is terrorism throughout the world, al Qaeda or not, and it needs to be destroyed. Who's to say if we weren't in Iraq that al Qaeda wouldn't be there now? It's all "what if" scenarios that we'll never know the answer to. All that matters is dealing with the problem that we have now.

Kim writes;<blockquot... (Below threshold)
John:

Kim writes;

Will the anti-war leftists actually try to argue that al Qaeda in Iraq wouldn't have even considered this plot if we hadn't gone into Iraq first?

Yes, we will. Repeat after me.

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there.

Our GWOT is inflaming tensions and not making us safer.

Fighting them over there does not mean you won't have to fight them over here. Quite the opposite.

Turn off Fox News, Kim

Why is it that libnuts thin... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Why is it that libnuts think if they tell a lie often enough, it becomes a truth.

GianniEhat you ref... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Gianni

Ehat you refer to as "libnut lies" is the truth to which you refuse to listen because "Reality" is in conflict w/ your world of fantasy.

I just want one of the libn... (Below threshold)
Luke:

I just want one of the libnuts, either one makes no difference, but someone on the left please tell me this:

What in hell were we doing wrong on 9/10 and before, to cause 9/11? Someone, anyone, step up to the plate.

The sound of crickets will soon be deafening....

"What in hell were we doing... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"What in hell were we doing wrong on 9/10 and before,"

How about cutting brush on the ranch instead taking critical warnings seriously (PDB-OBL Determined to Attack)?

What I don't get is the lef... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

What I don't get is the leftwing chant, "We are making the terrorist mad because we are in Iraq." And then the inane, "The more we fight them, the more terrorists we create." How many Imperial Japanese did we create when we nuked Hiroshima? How many Nazis did we create when we fire-bombed Dresden?

What part of GWOT do you not get? Iraq is now the front line. Good Americans want to be in it to win it. The left, not so much...redeploy, retreat, whatever you wanna call it.

Say what you like about Bus... (Below threshold)
Gringo:

Say what you like about Bush, but he did give us the first five year span in a looooong time with no terror attacks in the U.S.

What in hell were we doing ... (Below threshold)
Luke:

What in hell were we doing wrong on 9/10 and before,"

How about cutting brush on the ranch instead taking critical warnings seriously (PDB-OBL Determined to Attack)? BarneyG2000


You are an absolute genius Barney. If Bush was NOT cutting brush on the ranch we would not be attacked. Right? Do you ever wonder why we always refer to you guys as "nuts"? Here's your sign.

If Al Qaeda attacked us at ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

If Al Qaeda attacked us at all on 9/11, it was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. Bush acknowledged as much when we abandoned our bases there( though token American personel are still attached to Saudi units under Saudi command). Of course Bin Ladin denied any involvement (at first) so who knows. Loose Change makes a compelling case for the Inside Job angle. And the finding of the highjackers passports within hours, in the midst of a million tons of dust and rubble, and after a 2000 degree firestorm just sounds too convenient. Anyway, Bush seems not too worried about it, so fall in line. Ready! Set! SHOP!

You mean the 'libtruth' th... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

You mean the 'libtruth' that the rich dont pay taxes, or the 'libtruth' tax cuts were only for the rich?

Maybe you meant 'libtruths' like the economy sucks, middle class is shrinking, inflation too high, unemployment too high, tax %'s arent high enough(although no lib I know of volunteers to pay more), Americans cant afford a home anymore, or that dems do a better job in elected positions.

Home ownership is at an all-time high.

The stock market is at a new all-time high and America 's 401K's are back.

Unemployment is at 25 year lows.

Taxes are at 20 year lows.

Federal tax revenues are at all-time highs.

The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last year.

Home valuations are up 200% over the past 3.5 years.

Inflation is in check, hovering at 20 year lows.

Not a single terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11/01.

Dumbasses might want to believe the rich dont pay taxes, but the sheep that believe that are the same sheep that need minimum wage and/or a union as a security blanket since theyre either too lazy or ignorant to prosper on their own.

Lib hypocrisy knows no bounds. I laugh at you people who want higher taxes, yet peope like Kennedy and Edwards do all they can, including lying about where his mother actually lived, so as to avoid taxes. Anyone that believes a liberal truly cares about 'life' is also a fool. Anyone that believes dems are less corrupt is a fool, unless of course own stock in DelMonte, so you can continue to make more because you pay slave wages in American Somoa so you can get a better return on your investment dollar(aka campaign donations to SanFranNan).

Dont forget how Dems have run major cities such as Philly, Detriot, Newark, and Nawlins. Look at the murder and the poverty rate and see if those elected dems, like Street and Nagin, are more concerned about the people, or their own pockets.

The Prez doesn't even by th... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The Prez doesn't even by the pr 9/11 link between al Qaeda and Irag. From the Prz 9/03:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

See no link. If Saddam was harboring al Qaeda agents, than Iraq would materially resposible for the attacks.

".. but he did give us the ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

".. but he did give us the first five year span in a looooong time with no terror attacks in the U.S."

See, Bush can't even do better than Clinton when it comes to attacks on US soil. The first WT attack occured in Feb 1992, the next attack was Sept 2001. That is a span of 9 1/2 years which span all but 2-months of Clinton's Presidency (8-years).

Loose Change makes a com... (Below threshold)
Luke:

Loose Change makes a compelling case for the Inside Job angle.
bryanD

I have another. Here's your sign bryanD. You are a nut. Fact is you have moved above old Barney (great name) in the leftnut really, really, really, genius category.

Inside job huh? My Momma always told me there were nuts out here. She was soooooooooooo right.

" How many Imperial Japa... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

" How many Imperial Japanese did we create when we nuked Hiroshima? How many Nazis did we create when we fire-bombed Dresden?"

Um, yeah, and America has been pissing it's collective pants of a forthcoming Vietcong attack on American soil since 1975.

What in hell were ... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:
What in hell were we doing wrong on 9/10 and before, to cause 9/11? Someone, anyone, step up to the plate.

We were breathing.

I think anyone "predicting"... (Below threshold)

I think anyone "predicting" what would have happened if we had not taken Iraq is dreaming. Using what has occurred since the invasion and defining it in terms of no invasion is useless. Going to Iraq was not a snap decision and the vote for it was overwhelming. What has most people foiled in this is the 20/20 hindsight of several billion people able to criticize each nuance in the policy process. Did the US makes mistakes? Yes. Are they correctable? Yes. But then, no war has been perfect - they have all been moving targets (no pun intended).

For Kim to suggest the left will use this is not difficult. The left uses everything that can be painted two ways - which makes for a huge landscape. But when a country goes to war - theoretically supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority - it must execute the plan it has. Calling oneself "anti-war" because you don't like the way it's going is where hypocrisy is born. We haven't showed staying power spine since WWII. And that is what AQ in Iraq sees - and they are betting the farm on it.

And if we must engage in "predicting" what would be with no Iraq invasion, simply move the cause to Afghanistan. The Islamist cause is not just America - it's the world. They are simply more patient than we are.

Interesting how information... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Interesting how information that is six months old gets released to the media on the eve of The State of the Union Address.

Probably only a coincidence.

MyPetGloat:<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

MyPetGloat:

Um, yeah, and America has been pissing it's collective pants of a forthcoming Vietcong attack on American soil since 1975.

Um, yeah, and where would the precedence for an attack on American soil by the Vietcong come from?

No MPG, when we left, Southeast Asians paid the ultimate price, not us.

John:

There was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there.

That's right, they came there to fight us.

Our GWOT is inflaming tensions and not making us safer.

Correct. Capitulate, appease, beg, self-isolation. That's the way to solve terrorism.

Fighting them over there does not mean you won't have to fight them over here. Quite the opposite.

Agreed, if only we weren't fighting Al-qaeda in Iraq before 9/11 we never would have been attacked...oh, wait, nevermind.

John, we'll be attacked either way. I don't know about you, but I'd rather be attacked because we are killing jihadis...rather than being attacked because we aren't killing jihadis.

BarneyG2000: Kind of forgot... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

BarneyG2000: Kind of forgot all of the people killed in attacks on American facilities overseas during the 90's didn't you? Embassies are "American property is the same as if it was located in NYC" Dhimmi problem, don't see it, don't say it, it didn't happen.
There were thousands of documents captured in Iraq that prove the exact reverse of all of the dhimmi's arguments. Another thing they choose to ignore, facts from the head terrorist, Saddam himself. Some of you dhimmi's that can read should help translate the documents and wake up.

Today there is no way to tell a democrat from a terrorists. The dhimmi's in congress and the terrorists around the world are using the same handbook and talking points. Who is supporting who? I know who will pay for the dhimmi (including the liberal progressives posting on here) traitorism for political purposes. Thousands of Americans will pay with their lives in the next few years. The blood will be on the dhimmi's hands just like the blood of millions in Southeast Asia is on your leaders hands. Your protection has been negated by the dhimmi's. The terrorists can attack at will. Actually I no longer care, bring it on, kill a few million Ameriicans and the rest might just wake up, if not they don't matter anyway and there will be no loss.

To expand on Scrapiron's po... (Below threshold)

To expand on Scrapiron's point, the embassies in Africa Al Qaeda attacked ARE -- by all legal definitions -- sovereign United States territory. I'm not entirely certain, but I believe the same holds true for US warships such as the USS Cole.

So from the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993 to the African bombings in August 1998, we have roughly 5 years, 5 months. Since 9/11, we've had 5 years, 4 months. So mid-February or so, we'll pass the official demarcation.

J.

Apparently Zawahiri knows s... (Below threshold)
914:

Apparently Zawahiri knows something that jac asses like bryan D does not!

Like Al Quaeda, Iraq and 911 terrorism have been and are joined at the hip know matter how You try to nuance and justify the murderers insanity.

Um, yeah, and where woul... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

Um, yeah, and where would the precedence for an attack on American soil by the Vietcong come from?

No MPG, when we left, Southeast Asians paid the ultimate price, not us.


- As if you ever cared about the welfare of "Southeast Asians". Which ones? North or South Vietnamese? Cambodians? Laotions?

-So who's a jihadi then? Sunni? Shiite? It's the same problem slick, it's anoyne who dosen't want to be occupied.

anyone seen the clip from L... (Below threshold)
jp:

anyone seen the clip from Letterman with Dan Rather on Sept. 17, 2001. In which Rather claimed Al-Qaeda was in over 50 countries including IRAQ and that he sat face to face with Saddam and he was evil and we needed to remove him and stop his terror funding, etc.

anyway, CBS and Rather just had that clip removed from YouTube while not removing others.

Scrap and Jay:What... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Scrap and Jay:

What about these:

Sept 2006
Four attackers detonated the car bomb before attempting to storm the compound, the Syrian ministry said. (Watch officials go through evidence from the attack -- 5:43)
The Syrian forces met the attackers, and an embassy guard was killed battling them, the ministry said.

Jan 2007
ATHENS: An anti-tank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here Friday just before dawn. The building was empty, but the attack nonetheless underscored deep anti-U.S. sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

I guess Bush has not kept us safe.

<a href="http://husseinandt... (Below threshold)
jp:

http://husseinandterror.com

Fact: Iraq was a State Sponsor of Terrorism under Saddam, there is irrefutable proof of it that is known to the public, no telling what is classified.

Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq Official Policy of the U.S. in 1998.

Ramsey Youssef came to the US on an Iraqi Passport after first gulf war and promptly bombed the WTC in 1993 on the 2 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF KUWAIT!!!! Yousefs cousin was the 9/11 mastermind, KSM who finished what he started.

a Clinton appointed judge ruled Saddam was connected to 9/11 and rewarded a 100 Million dollar settlement to 9/11 family.

CNN from the Clinton Years.... (Below threshold)
jp:

CNN from the Clinton Years..1999

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

Saddam Hussein offered asylum

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

MyPetGloat:<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

MyPetGloat:

- As if you ever cared about the welfare of "Southeast Asians". Which ones? North or South Vietnamese? Cambodians? Laotions?

And why would I not care, and why does their country matter? Thanks for the irrelevence, it really helped the discussion as well as completely avoided the point I made.

-So who's a jihadi then? Sunni? Shiite?

Let me break it down for you. A Jihadi would be someone who engages in Jihad...which could include anyone regardless of ethnicity and nationality.

Ideology, you see?

It's the same problem slick, it's anoyne who dosen't want to be occupied.

So no one has ever engaged in Jihad who wasn't occupied, slick? Wrong.

That's ok. So as not to confuse you, I'll just call them terrorists.


Thanks Barney,You be... (Below threshold)

Thanks Barney,
You beat me to it.

JP, very impressive, but as... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

JP, very impressive, but as I provided in an earlier post, Bush thinks otherwise:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks," Mr Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.

Many Americans believe that some of the hijackers were Iraqi - when none were - and that the attacks had been orchestrated by Baghdad, despite any concrete evidence to support that.

So JP, are you calling the President a liar?

nowhere did I say Saddam wa... (Below threshold)
jp:

nowhere did I say Saddam was directly tied to 9/11, just pointing out the LIE that Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq then. There is however enough evidence to indicate smoke in that area, but what we know publicly atleast, there was no direct connection but there were connections to the 2.

Jat Tea"So from... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jat Tea

"So from the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993 to the African bombings in August 1998, we have roughly 5 years, 5 months. Since 9/11, we've had 5 years, 4 months. So mid-February or so, we'll pass the official demarcation."

That is the lamest attempt to reduce the fact that there have been NO TERRORIST attacks on US soil since 9/11 while overlooking the 8 year gap since WTC '93.

I used to think that you did a better job of not making a fool of yourself by carefully & logically constructing your posts. This is a laughable low in absurdist reduction.

Bwahahahahahah... love the ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Bwahahahahahah... love the idiotic comments from the lefties. My favorite is that if Bush hadn't been clearing brush on his ranch, we wouldn't have been attacked.

Oh yeah. Put these types in charge of national security - STAT!

There is no terrorist threat. There is no terrorist threat.
Michael Moore 2002

there was an attack on US S... (Below threshold)
jp:

there was an attack on US Soil in 1995, Ok. City bombing. There was an invstigative reporter that reported on the "third terrorist" and wrote a book about it. The case on that is not closed.

I did hear a CIA analyst, can't think of his name, say he thinks eventually it will come out that Saddam was the puppet master behind 93' WTC, Ok. City and 9/11.

interesting book on Ok. City, http://jaynadavis.com

the Clinton Justice Departm... (Below threshold)
jp:

the Clinton Justice Department prepared an indictment of Osama bin Laden. The relevant passage, prominently placed in the fourth paragraph, reads:


Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq.

So JP, are you calling ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

So JP, are you calling the President a liar?

No, Barney, but we are calling you an idiot and wussy. Please tell me you're a woman. At least that would explain a lot.


Concerns that Iraq would wo... (Below threshold)
jp:

Concerns that Iraq would work with al Qaeda against the Saudis did not end when bin Laden left Sudan in 1996. According to a CIA report summarized in a top-secret memo sent from the Pentagon to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2003: "The Saudi Arabian National Guard went on a kingdom-wide heightened state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S. and U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia."

"Bill CLinton was Right"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/274fwxli.asp?pg=2

nowhere did I say Saddam wa... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

nowhere did I say Saddam was directly tied to 9/11, just pointing out the LIE that Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq then. There is however enough evidence to indicate smoke in that area, but what we know publicly atleast, there was no direct connection but there were connections to the 2. jp

Kind of like being just a little bit pregnant? Have you ever heard the phrase Co Conspirator? Do you really think that Saddam would allow al Qaeda to launch attacks from Iraq without his knowledge and approval?

Get real, so either you believe that Saddam was involved and the President is a liar, or you are just delusional.

I will await your answer.

bryanD:<... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

bryanD:


If Al Qaeda attacked us at all on 9/11, it was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia

Ah.. another 'Progressive' thinker.

Remember this story next ti... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Remember this story next time a leftie says they support the troops.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245718,00.html

Unbelievable. Fox News is all over it. Yahooooo!

JO, what is your opinion of... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

JO, what is your opinion of this:

WASHINGTON // The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.

If Al Qaeda attacked us... (Below threshold)
marc:

If Al Qaeda attacked us at all on 9/11, it was because of our presence in Saudi Arabia. Bush acknowledged as much when we abandoned our bases there( though token American personel are still attached to Saudi units under Saudi command). Of course Bin Ladin denied any involvement (at first) so who knows.

While Osama did previously state his opposition to US forces in Saudi Arabia it's interesting you choose to ignore the more important section and overall goal of al Qaeda as stated in the same fatwa that contained that "complaint."

The overall goal then, and now, is the establsihment of the Moslem Khalifate, or, "Genuine Islamic Rule," to include all of the Middle East, Indonesia as the world's largest Muslim country and a return of Andalusia (Spain) to the Islamic fold. (the real reason for the train attacks not Spain's involvement in Iraq)

BryanD[enier] perhaps you can explain the presence of al Qaeda in Spain to this day, shouldn't they have moved on to other battle fields after Spain tossed out the appeasement card and pulled out of Iraq?

Loose Change makes a compelling case for the Inside Job angle. And the finding of the highjackers passports within hours, in the midst of a million tons of dust and rubble, and after a 2000 degree firestorm just sounds too convenient. Anyway, Bush seems not too worried about it, so fall in line. Ready! Set! SHOP!
:: by bryanD on January 23, 2007 11:08 AM

bryanD[enier], well now isn't that interesting. As many have suspected, and now confirmed by your own words, you truly are a nutjob.

Kind of like being just a l... (Below threshold)
jp:

Kind of like being just a little bit pregnant? Have you ever heard the phrase Co Conspirator? Do you really think that Saddam would allow al Qaeda to launch attacks from Iraq without his knowledge and approval?

Get real, so either you believe that Saddam was involved and the President is a liar, or you are just delusional.

I will await your answer.

Posted by: BarneyG2000
----------------

There is a difference between an operational linkage and what I'm claiming, it was a breading ground and there is ample evidence of A LOT OF COLLUSION between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, training camps like Salman Pak.... It is why the State Dept. had them labeled a State Sponsor of Terror, Why Bill Clinton called for regime change as official US Policy....

Been watching and listening... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Been watching and listening to the dhimmi talking heads today. They're only option to 'fighting' the war on terror is still surrender, cut and run and allow the terrorists free rein to attack America several time per year with no retaliation. After all they will only kill a few hundred at a time and will never catch the dhimmi record of 47 million babies murdered.

Can we question their patroitism now?

I see the troop bashing, terrorists supporting Turbin Durbin is bloggin on KOS. No need to question his patroitism, just question how much aid, including financial he has provided to aid in the killing of Americans. The people of Il. must be proud of this traitor.

relevant section of the Ira... (Below threshold)
jp:

relevant section of the Iraq War Resolution passed by congress in 2002

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Whereas members of al-Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

BryanD. . . you quoted Loos... (Below threshold)

BryanD. . . you quoted Loose Change, huh? Please check this out.

I like how you take the Loose Change as gospel, even though they have been proven time and again to twist the facts (such as the guy who said it looked like a missile that hit the pentagon, but if you watch the whole clip, he clearly saw the JET LINER, hit the building LIKE A MISSILE)

Check you facts, then talk.

Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre wa... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre war. Fact. Deal with it.

JP, you da man today!

If that even mattered, prov... (Below threshold)
maggysturn:

If that even mattered, prove it. Fact is, though, that it doesn't matter. There is terrorism throughout the world, al Qaeda or not, and it needs to be destroyed. Who's to say if we weren't in Iraq that al Qaeda wouldn't be there now? It's all "what if" scenarios that we'll never know the answer to. All that matters is dealing with the problem that we have now.
Posted by: Logan at January 23, 2007 10:11 AM

Typical right-wing bullshit. If it's soooo important to fight terrorism "throughout the world", why hasn't Bush sent troops to Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia? All have brutal, and active muslim terrorist groups. Oh that's right, there's no oil there.

And for all of you (idiots) who still support the president and this folly in Iraq, what are YOU doing to contribute to the fight? I would bet nothing more than putting yellow "Support our Troops" bumper stickers on your gas guzzliing SUVs. Jackasses.

maggiesturn:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

maggiesturn:


Typical right-wing bullshit. If it's soooo important to fight terrorism "throughout the world", why hasn't Bush sent troops to Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia? All have brutal, and active muslim terrorist groups. Oh that's right, there's no oil there.

I'll pretend that you're honestly too stupid to think this through on your own...

How many of those countries are labeled as state sponsors of terrorism (this is especially key) ? How many have attacked a neighboring country without provocation ? How many are in violation of numerous U.N.S.C. resolutions ? How many have possessed WMD technology ?

Which countries fit all of the above ?

jp,The REAL al qua... (Below threshold)
Robert:

jp,

The REAL al quaeda terrorists (9/11 hijackers) went to schools in the U.S.

Sounds like a definite link between al quaeda and the U.S.
Much stronger than the supposed al quaeda/ Iraq link.

What do you think?

This is really simpleminded... (Below threshold)
Chris:

This is really simpleminded. No attacks on the US since 9/11. Hooray for Bush. The right loves to count the Cole and Kenya embassy bombings as attacks against the US. What do you call the 3,000+ dead in Iraq? They apparently don't fit into your equation. Such big supporters of the troops, but forget they exist when it's inconvenient to you.

And it's interesting to see a link to a 1999 CNN report, with one sentence, unsupported by any facts, saying Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden. Interesting how the MSM is suddenly gospel when it meets your needs.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy