Posted on 07/13/2004 7:21:45 PM PDT by YankeeReb
| Wednesday, July 14, 2004 | ||
|
|
Osama's Woes | |
| INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | ||
|
Iraq: Al-Qaida and its terrorist allies are on the run in Iraq and elsewhere. Just as President Bush vowed two years ago, they're running out of room — and friends. The news reported by the main media is almost unremittingly bad. But the reality isn't. Take just one recent event: Iraqi police, working with coalition backup, on Tuesday nabbed 524 criminals in a major raid. Iraqis in recent months have worried about the deterioration of public security after the fall of Saddam. That's now being addressed — aggressively. On Monday, interim Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawer promised to use a "very sharp sword" against criminals and terrorists. After Tuesday's roundup, we know he means it. What's all this have to do with al-Qaida? Plenty. The terrorist group and its affiliates often operate in areas marked by lawlessness and social chaos, where it's easier for them to blend in. As the Iraq government and coalition forces crack down on crime, they'll also make greater inroads against al-Qaida. Indeed, that may already be happening. A recent report on the respected strategypage.com notes that "al-Qaida operations in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al-Qaida's suicide bombing campaign." So life in Iraq is getting harder for partisans of al-Qaida. Many are fleeing to their last stronghold of Fallujah. Others are leaving Iraq for good. In other nations where al-Qaida holes up, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, the message is also getting through. Fellow travelers are returning to Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria and Egypt. They've had enough. That was very much in evidence Tuesday, after Khaled al-Harbi, a terrorist who once appeared with Osama bin Laden in a videotape praising the 9-11 attack, surrendered to Saudi Arabia. Two other key players have also quit in recent days and asked for amnesty. This is important. As al-Qaida is rolled back, reformers are emboldened. Leaders in Afghanistan are even now busy preparing for national elections. So are Iraqis. And Saudi Arabia said Saturday it will hold municipal elections in September — the first since the 1960s. In such a manner, a trickle can fast become a flood. That which was unthinkable only a few years ago — a more open, democratic Mideast — becomes quite thinkable today. For this, credit President Bush's steadfastness of purpose in Iraq. Credit also the character and professionalism of our troops and the willingness of good Iraqis to step up when things got tough. It's paying off. |
||
Thanks for passing that along. It's nice to see a non-mainstream media editorial perspective.
Great article. Thanks for the post.
That this goes unreported, or severely under reported, is obscene.
Investor Business Daily rocks. I still remember the Paul Sperry piece that ripped Clinton a new behind, when Xlinton got mad at Sperry during an interview.
Because the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA are telling us that the threat of another attack at home is greater now than at any time since 9/11.
So who are we supposed to believe? Are we safer or are we not?
We are safer.
And this doesn't even factor in today's surrender of the AQ honcho.
Either you can not read for comprehension, are just unintelligent or you're a troll. You pick.
Are we safer and are we winning the war on terrorism?,,, Without doubt, yes.
Are we safe this election year? Of course not.
I have a hard time believing the Administration would assist the media in portraying this war as a losing effort simply to keep a few New Yorkers on the edge of their couch....
"The news reported by the main media is almost unremittingly bad. But the reality isn't."
You clearly cannot believe the "mainstream" media.
A co-worker of mine just returned from a year of reserve duty in Iraq a week ago and added his voice to what we already know - The media is lying!
great article thanks for the post
How do you define "safer"?
The president stated yesterday that the nation is safer, which I believe, but I'm troubled by the DHS stating that Osama Bin Laden is personally directing another attack on the U.S. which is supposed to be as bad or worse than 9/11. I'm also troubled by yesterday's similar comments by the acting CIA director.
The administration needs a clear and consistent message between now and November 6th. Ridge shouldn't be telling us to be worried about another attack when at the same time the President is saying that we're safer.
Belt tied too tight?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.