What Did You Do In The War On Terror, Daddy

Lets hear again how the war in Iraq is not the war on terror................


White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a "terrorist sanctuary."

Mindful of its trouble selling its war strategy to the American public, the White House is trying to put the spotlight on bin Laden's connections to Zarqawi, the head of Iraq's al Qaeda wing who was killed in a U.S. air strike in June 2006.

Bush's critics accuse him of trying to de-emphasize the role of sectarian fighting in Iraq's chaos and justify an unpopular war by focusing on links to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the authors of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The administration has abandoned earlier charges that al Qaeda had ties to the government of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before he was toppled in a 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Townsend spoke to reporters on the eve of a Bush speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to give an update on the war on terrorism, and as congressional Democrats backed off for now on demands Iraq war funding be tied to a troop pullout timetable.

Townsend said U.S. intelligence officials had pieced together accounts of some of Zarqawi's dealings with bin Laden, who has eluded U.S.-led efforts to track him down.

"The intelligence community tells us that in January 2005 bin Laden tasked Zarqawi ... to form a cell to conduct attacks outside Iraq and that frankly America should be his number one priority," she said.

"We know from the intelligence community that Zarqawi welcomed the tasking, claimed he already had some good proposals."

She declined, however, to specify any potential targets and would not say whether the plotters had advanced beyond the discussion stage. Al Qaeda has been behind some of the bloodiest bombings in Iraq since the invasion.

Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)."

She said she could go public with the information now because Zarqawi and Rabia are dead and several other key al Qaeda operatives are in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Townsend said it was "safe to assume" detainees involved in the alleged plot had been interrogated but declined to say what methods were used and whether it yielded useful information.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22479981.htm
 
Lets hear again how the war in Iraq is not the war on terror................


White House says bin Laden ordered Iraq plots

WASHINGTON, May 22 (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden ordered al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to form a cell in 2005 to plot attacks outside of Iraq and make the United States his main target, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.

Citing newly declassified intelligence, Fran Townsend, President George W. Bush's adviser for homeland security, said the information backs the administration's assertion that U.S. troops must stay in Iraq for now to prevent it from becoming a "terrorist sanctuary."

Mindful of its trouble selling its war strategy to the American public, the White House is trying to put the spotlight on bin Laden's connections to Zarqawi, the head of Iraq's al Qaeda wing who was killed in a U.S. air strike in June 2006.

Bush's critics accuse him of trying to de-emphasize the role of sectarian fighting in Iraq's chaos and justify an unpopular war by focusing on links to bin Laden and al Qaeda, the authors of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The administration has abandoned earlier charges that al Qaeda had ties to the government of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein before he was toppled in a 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Townsend spoke to reporters on the eve of a Bush speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy to give an update on the war on terrorism, and as congressional Democrats backed off for now on demands Iraq war funding be tied to a troop pullout timetable.

Townsend said U.S. intelligence officials had pieced together accounts of some of Zarqawi's dealings with bin Laden, who has eluded U.S.-led efforts to track him down.

"The intelligence community tells us that in January 2005 bin Laden tasked Zarqawi ... to form a cell to conduct attacks outside Iraq and that frankly America should be his number one priority," she said.

"We know from the intelligence community that Zarqawi welcomed the tasking, claimed he already had some good proposals."

She declined, however, to specify any potential targets and would not say whether the plotters had advanced beyond the discussion stage. Al Qaeda has been behind some of the bloodiest bombings in Iraq since the invasion.

Townsend said that in the spring of 2005 bin Laden also told Hamza Rabia, then al Qaeda's top operations man, to brief Zarqawi on the group's "external operations planning, including homeland plots (targeting the United States)."

She said she could go public with the information now because Zarqawi and Rabia are dead and several other key al Qaeda operatives are in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Townsend said it was "safe to assume" detainees involved in the alleged plot had been interrogated but declined to say what methods were used and whether it yielded useful information.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N22479981.htm

Sure RSR.

We All know we can trust what the White House says huh? (LOL!):badgrin:
 
it seems you do not read what I write. I have said over and over and over again that I am certain that Iran is helping terrorist organizations inside Iraq - SHI'ITE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!!!

AQ is not one of those types of organizations. AQ is busy killing indigenous Iraqis both sunni and shiite and killing Americans as well. Iran has no reason to support them if they are killing shiites..... nor would Sadr stand for such support.

White Flag Harrys and San fran Nan can tell their grandkids they surrendered to Pres Bush during the war on terror.
 
White Flag Harrys and San fran Nan can tell their grandkids they surrendered to Pres Bush during the war on terror.

does that tired old one liner ever get old?

you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08. A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines. Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.

You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.
 
does that tired old one liner ever get old?

you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08. A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines. Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.

You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.

But it is a true statement
 
But it is a true statement

no it's not.... surrender is the wrong word and you use it repeatedly and incorrectly, because you are a hack.... and a not very bright hack at that.

If you had any real intellect, you would be more nimble with your thoughts and your words...but, alas, you are dull and thick and very repetitive and predictable.
 
no it's not.... surrender is the wrong word and you use it repeatedly and incorrectly, because you are a hack.... and a not very bright hack at that.

If you had any real intellect, you would be more nimble with your thoughts and your words...but, alas, you are dull and thick and very repetitive and predictable.

The surrender bill failed because President Bush will not accept defeat in Iraq. The dems want fdefeat and are willing to lose the war - they think it helps them politically
 
The surrender bill failed because President Bush will not accept defeat in Iraq. The dems want fdefeat and are willing to lose the war - they think it helps them politically

the democratic funding bill failed because the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.... but there is no doubt that the majority of Americans were behind it, and that the veto will hurt your party.

sucks to be you.
 
the democratic funding bill failed because the democrats do not have a veto proof majority.... but there is no doubt that the majority of Americans were behind it, and that the veto will hurt your party.

sucks to be you.

The surrender failed because your party are a bunch of gutless cowards who do not have the balls to cut off funding

If they are so convinced the war is lost - why not cut off the money?
 
Yea, why would Dems do anything to back up what they say?

we said we wanted to end the war, not cut off funds for troops in the field. America was behind our funding bill. Bush vetoed it, republicans in congress voted to uphold that veto and will pay in '08. that is fine with me
 
Why the kneejerk reaction? I'm more than sure Congress will be all over this looking for flaws. If and when they find any, THEN it's time to call foul. Otherwise, it is what it is.

Gunny, to him, Pres Bush is the only terrorist the US has to worry about
 
we said we wanted to end the war, not cut off funds for troops in the field. America was behind our funding bill. Bush vetoed it, republicans in congress voted to uphold that veto and will pay in '08. that is fine with me

So the Dems break a promise. It would not be the first one they have forgotten about
 
The surrender failed because your party are a bunch of gutless cowards who do not have the balls to cut off funding

If they are so convinced the war is lost - why not cut off the money?

This couldn't possibly be a serious question.

I also not that at first Democrats were traitors for trying to cut off funding. Now they're gutless cowards for not doing it. You are as bad as ANY left-wingnut attacking Bush -- no matter what he does, it's wrong.

The fact is, the troops were GOING TO BE funded, period. They'd have just been drawing against monies not yet appropriated.
 
This couldn't possibly be a serious question.

I also not that at first Democrats were traitors for trying to cut off funding. Now they're gutless cowards for not doing it. You are as bad as ANY left-wingnut attacking Bush -- no matter what he does, it's wrong.

The fact is, the troops were GOING TO BE funded, period. They'd have just been drawing against monies not yet appropriated.

Gunny, if Dems actually believe the war is lost - why not cut off the money and force the troops to come home?

I am serious. It is a logical question
 
does that tired old one liner ever get old?

you KNOW that this war is killing not only American servicemembers, but also killing your party's chances for '08. A large majority of the people wanted the President to sign the democrat's funding bill with deadlines. Those republicans who voted to sustain that veto are going to have to go back and explain to their constituents why they did the wrong thing.

You can run away from that all day long..... but the war will make the '08 elections a trainwreck for the GOP.

Even the liberal media is getting pissed


Matt Lauer Hits John Edwards from the Left on Democratic 'Cave-In'
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on May 23, 2007 - 10:59.
Updated with video below fold.

NBC's Matt Lauer spared no punches when he interviewed John Edwards on this morning's Today show, trouble is they were mostly left jabs. After a David Gregory report on the war funding bill, the Today co-host didn't waste any time launching into Edwards as he demanded to know why his fellow Democrats had to "cave-in."

Lauer: "David calls it a compromise, whatever we call it, let's talk about this deal that was struck in Congress. They, basically, the supplemental funding bill has 18 benchmarks the Iraqis have to hit on political progress, security, economic progress. Reports from the White House to Congress, July 15th, September 15th. But, and this is a big but, the headline here is no deadline for U.S. troops. Why did the Democrats cave-in?"

http://newsbusters.org/node/12951
 
Gunny, if Dems actually believe the war is lost - why not cut off the money and force the troops to come home?

I am serious. It is a logical question

It is NOT a logical question. You cannot just "cut funding" for troops in the field. I doubt ANYONE actually believes you can.

The Democrats proposed a bill to which they attached a rider proposing troop downsizing on a gradual basis. They are quite aware that no matter what, the troops have to be funded.

The President accepts or rejects the bill, not Congress. When Congress got the bill the President was willing to sign, he signed. That's the way it works.

There is a law in place signed by Ronald Reagan called a "Continuing Authority." All operational expenses will be met pending the authorization bill.

Your scenario just isn't going to happen.
 

Forum List

Back
Top