That small percentage was responsible for the majority of the major bombings that killed tens of thousands of innocent people.
People like Boo always try to blame the US for the Iraqi's al Qaeda killed.
Some here blame the US for the innocent people killed on 9/11. Go figure.
Wow! Really? Well, he must have been just a stand up guy before that then huh? So your Nuh uh, is based on semantics.
Good GAWD.
j-mac
So Zarqawi was fighting in Afghanistan for whom? Himself?
His training camp in NE Iraq before OIF was training which terrorist group?
Wiki isn't an accurate source for things like this. They aren't about to admit Bush was right. Like you they would rather take cyanide.
You have to actually read a book or two. We both know you aren't going to do that.
Geezus...wiki?
Foreign fighters were just 3-4 % of all insurgents ... 4% is high. This insurgency was and still is almost purely Iraqi. Ignore the occassional Al Qaeda attack .. most SVBIEDs are from former regime loyalists.
Zarqawi was a small player in the overall insurgency. Why give him so much play when former General Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri and the former head of the covert intelligence agency the Saddam Fedayeen, Special Security Service and Special Republican Guard were running, the war.
Focus on the right enemy.
Yeah, but his people are dangerous.....Lotta talk today about Samantha Power being involved in pushing this intervention into Libya....That in itself wouldn't be so bad if she weren't an anti Semitic piece of trash.
j-mac
I don't give him much play. Ron does. I'm trying to get him to focus on the Iraqis, who were and are theones we're actually fighting. Ron has a lot of misperceptions concerning the war. He thinks defeating Iraqis defeats all of al Qaeda. This is inaccurate. He thinks Saddam was working with al Qaeda, and this is also inaccurate. Iraq was not an attack on our threat, but a place where we fought and killed people who would not have been otherwise been involved in figting us at all.
And no, 4% is not a high number, especially considering most of those were new recruits with no previous connection to any terrorist group. This means the core group of al Qaeda invested very little in Iraq overall. It was never a place they had to "win." It was instead an unexpected opportunity for them to hurt us. The won the second we we went into Iraq. It has cost us far more than them, and for very little in return.
In hindsight...It could have been and it should have been
In short....**** happens
The fact is, there was foresight. Many knew and said so, exhibiting foresight. They just weren't listened to. It is not enough when a president recklessly and foolishly ignores proper intel in favor of doubted intel to say **** happens.
You seem like an intelligent individual but....
You can armchair quarterback the President or Presidents all day long, dude and you can complain that the rabid dog fights between right and left wing media sources play upon weakness to rip us apart, but at the end of the day the ones who are responsible are....US...We the people
You may squirm and say "I did not do it, most assuredly, WE ****ing did it... A "WE" that YOU are very much a part of. There is no escaping that no matter how many fingers you point or smoke screens you set ... from any side.
WE elected Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carte...and so on...
WE elected them all. WE put them there together.
You seem like an intelligent individual but....
You can armchair quarterback the President or Presidents all day long, dude and you can complain that the rabid dog fights between right and left wing media sources play upon weakness to rip us apart, but at the end of the day the ones who are responsible are....US...We the people
You may squirm and say "I did not do it, most assuredly, WE ****ing did it... A "WE" that YOU are very much a part of. There is no escaping that no matter how many fingers you point or smoke screens you set ... from any side.
WE elected Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carte...and so on...
WE elected them all. WE put them there together.
Now I agree that we are to blame for who we elected. I'm with you on that. But that does not excuse the president from being reckless, foolish and lacking foresight. Other had foresight. He had access to them. He is not let off the hook.
So, cry into the solace of shared spilled milk, Boo... if you will but rest assured, when the history books are written it will say the United States of America did this and there will be no salvation for those who are in the minority. WE elected Bush and others now they are doing the job they were hired to do
Not at all. But he wasn't a member of al qaeda. So you can't claim him as evidence of Saddam working with al Qeada. It's called being honest j.
Why don't you research to find out. The link I gave you outlines his history pretty well.
And actually, wiki is a fine overview source. However, and search will link you to thousands of articles saying exactly the same thing.
I've been reading about Iraq since before OIF.
Check out wiki on the IPP report. No mention of Saddam's willingness to work with al Qaeda or his terrorist attacks.
The fact you think wiki is a reliable source for things like this speaks for itself.
I'm well aware thousands of articles written about Iraq are just as deliberately misinformed as you are.
So, cry into the solace of shared spilled milk, Boo... if you will but rest assured, when the history books are written it will say the United States of America did this and there will be no salvation for those who are in the minority. WE elected Bush and others now they are doing the job they were hired to do
A record 49 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan, up 8 points since January. And those who disapprove “strongly” outnumber strong approvers by nearly a 2-1 margin.
With Obama holding his monthly national security meeting on Afghanistan today, the results show a significant drop in the president’s approval rating on handling the issue, down 12 points in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll from a year ago.
The change follows an ABC/Post poll last month in which a new low, 31 percent, said the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting. Sixty-four percent said it is not worth fighting, with 49 percent feeling that way “strongly,” both record highs in ABC/Post polls.
Views on the war could impact Obama’s fortunes in the next election: Among those who disapprove of his handling of the situation, 70 percent say they will definitely not vote for him for re-election in 2012.
P.J. Crowley is speaking out against President Barack Obama’ policies on the Middle East, charging his former boss with adopting an “inconsistency doctrine” on the region and urging intervention in Syria.
Crowley, who stepped down as the State Department’s top spokesman last month, writes Friday that the Obama administration has yet to solidify its position on how to handle uprisings across the Arab world, but needs to do so. In particular, he calls for the president to get involved in the emerging conflict in Syria.
“Although Obama seemed to embrace the concept of “responsibility to protect” in intervening in Libya and calling for Muammar Qadhafi to step down from power, he has not done the same in Syria,” Crowley says in a column published by The Daily Beast. “If Qadhafi must go because he is unwilling to reform and has employed extreme state-controlled violence against a population that no longer fears him, so should President Bashar al-Assad.”
Crowley’s view is one that many administration observers, foreign policy experts and members of Congress have taken, but this is the first time it has been voiced by someone who was, until recently, privy to high-level deliberations.
today:
Crowley hits Obama's 'inconsistency doctrine' - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
crowley is the former state dept spokesperson reportedly close to hillary who was forced out after speaking againt the administration's treatment of wikileaker manning
fyi
Everyone who wants to vote for Obama AGAIN should take note of this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?