Posted on 06/29/2005 7:04:16 AM PDT by NO_2_CORZINE
WASHINGTON - Congressional critics of President Bush's stay-the-course commitment to the war in Iraq argued Wednesday that the administration lacks sufficient troops on the ground to mount a successful counterinsurgency. Democrats in particular criticized Bush for again raising the Sept. 11 attacks as a justification for the protracted fight in Iraq after the president proclaimed anew that he plans to keep U.S. forces there as long as necessary to ensure peace.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
AP= Association of Pinheads
Just the Democrats and the MSM setting up the American public for the slaughter of more American innocents! That vermin that calls itself the Democrat Party is nothing but a bunch of America haters and traitors. Wonder when the American people will ever wake up???
They atacked the President for 24 hours in the lead up to this speech, and they still failed to stop him from getting the Truth out.
Desperate is a correct term. This President connects with the American people, he had a forum to speak to us undiluted by carefully edited bites, and the MSM can't touch that connection.
FDR was no doubt also criticized for mnetioning Pearl Harbor during countless wartime speeches..
I caught the 9-11 references last night and wish that Bush had gone as far back (or further) to Beirut and the Marines barracks back in the Reagan era, and the first Twin Tower bombing in 1993, and the African Embassy and Cole bombings also during Clinton's time in office. Can't forget Carter and the US Embassy hostages.
Hearing the Dems with their redundant talking point of 9-11/WMD/bin Laden non-connections sounded just like their squealings during the presidential campaign. It didn't work then. It won't work now.
This is a war that started a long time ago and Iraq is only one part of it.
I can't help but wonder who are the military tactics experts among the Democrats in Congress that are so much smarter than our commanders in the field. The Dems wouldn't know which end of a gun the bullet comes out of, let alone how many troops it takes to fight a counter insurgency.
Bringing more troops than are necessary to a war only leads to more casualties.
In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” – an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, “New York, New York”. (Link below)
List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam:
Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities:
The AQ connection (excellent):
Western Nightmare:
Saddam's link to OBL:
NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate:
Document linking them:
Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it:
A federal judge rules there are links:
Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ:
Iraq and Iran contact OBL:
More evidence:
Saddam's AQ connection:
Further connections:
What a court of law said about the connections:
Some miscellaneous stuff on connections:
Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda: (February 2004, Weekly Standard)
Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points.
Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)
Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)
The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)
Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)
Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003):
Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004):
Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks:
Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie:
Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003:
Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited:
Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999
The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003
Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003:
No Question About It, National Review, September 2003
Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View
Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC:
Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic:
The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003:
Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003
September 11 Victims Sue Iraq:
Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003
Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003
James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35
A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections:
Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq:
Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03
CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11:
Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star:
The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again
Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002
The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003
Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01
Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003:
Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ:
Credit to Peach for this info.
Gen Pelosi, Col Nadler, LTC Reid, Maj Lautenback, Cpt Kucinich, lLT, Durbin. 2LT Obama; and don't forget Ens Kerry..
There are so many reasons for not having more troops there. More targets, local resentment, force protection issues, expense, what would you do with troops that have not been trained for the type of work needed?
Most of these folks yammering about "more troops" are from the cannon fodder days. They simply don't understand that warfare has made advances beyond handing someone a gun and telling them to go out and kill the enemy.
This was on CNN:
Carol Costello vs Robin Hayes
REP. ROBIN HAYES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: Thank you, Carol.
Good morning.
COSTELLO: Representative Hayes, your district includes Fort Bragg, where the president made his speech.
I want to read you an e-mail from one of our viewers. Dan in California writes: "Bush really should be making this speech at Arlington National Cemetery, not at Fort Bragg."
Was it appropriate for President Bush to speak there?
HAYES: Absolutely, it was. It shows our love and appreciation for the troops and what they're doing. The president spent three hours with family members who've lost loved ones as a result of this war against terror and terrorists.
COSTELLO: But isn't he, in part, using Fort Bragg as an appropriate backdrop to cheerlead the war in Iraq?
HAYES: It's not about cheerleading the war in Iraq, it's about informing the American people of the progress that's been made. The e-mail I got from Iraq yesterday, "a time line is a terrible mistake," "we are winning," "we will win." And the stakes, the future is Western civilization and freedom around the world.
COSTELLO: President Bush said in his speech we're there to fight terrorists. But he failed to explain how a war to remove a dictator bent on using nuclear weapons has turned into a fight against Muslim militants.
Doesn't he owe us an explanation?
HAYES: He gave us a very good explanation of what the war is about. It's winning the war against terror and people that would kill us, innocent women and children. This is about a military action against ruthless, brutal killers who have no conscience whatsoever.
COSTELLO: Well, we understand that.
HAYES: It's about destroying us.
COSTELLO: But that's not what it started out, when the United States invaded Iraq.
It's changed, hasn't it?
HAYES: I don't think it's changed at all. It's very clear that terrorists are connected to what Saddam Hussein was all about. And that again faces up to the most severe threat going forward...
COSTELLO: But there is no...
HAYES: We have to do a good job explaining...
COSTELLO: ... evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.
HAYES: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get access to it, unfortunately others don't. But the evidence is very clear.
COSTELLO: What evidence is there?
HAYES: The connection between individuals who were connected to Saddam Hussein, folks who worked for him, we've seen it time and time again. But the issue is where are we now. Nobody disputes 9/11. They would do that again if not prevented. Preventing 9/11 wherever it might happen in America, winning the war overseas, not bringing it here to our shores, is the issue in that regard.
COSTELLO: Well, are you saying that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?
HAYES: I'm saying that Saddam Hussein -- and I think you're losing track of what we're trying to talk about here -- Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11. Did he make the phone call and say...
COSTELLO: There's no evidence of that.
HAYES: Well, I'm sorry, you haven't looked in the right places.
COSTELLO: I must not have, because I know of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda. And, also, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And many people writing to us this morning wanted the president to explain those things.
HAYES: Well, we would be glad to explain it. I'd love to talk to those people face-to-face because hundreds of thousands of Kurds were gassed and killed, biological weapons were used. Fortunately, nuclear weapons weren't there. That's one smoking gun we didn't find. But it's very clear he would have used it if he could. The terrorists that remain would clearly use nuclear, biological, chemical, any other kind of weapon to destroy you, me and our families.
COSTELLO: All right, well, let me ask you this, because taxpayers are doling out in excess of $400 billion to pay for this war. You have the power when it comes to this.
Is there a time when you will say enough?
HAYES: I will say enough when we have victory against terror and terrorists. We are winning the war in Iraq. A time line is a terrible idea. That came directly from the people who are fighting the war. Progress is being made. The men and women are doing a fabulous job. There's a time line clearly with a constitution and elections being held. We stand down as they stand up. Progress is being made every day in the strength and confidence of the Iraqi security forces. That's what brings our men and women home. And the stake is our future and our children's future.
COSTELLO: A final question.
Do you feel safer here because of the war in Iraq? Is that preventing terrorist attacks in the United States?
HAYES: Absolutely. Well, we haven't had an attack since 9/11, and that's what we're here to prevent. And I absolutely do feel safer. If not now, when? If not here, where? And better in Iraq than in America.
I think the days of having huge armies is gone. With technology the way it is, I think a lean mean military is the way to go..
1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
Thanks...have you got a link for that? If so, I'll add it to the list.
Thanks...I added them to the file with credit to you for those "gems".
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.