Lindaland
  Global Unity
  No progress, we're losing ... but wait!

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   No progress, we're losing ... but wait!
Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 12:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
AMMAN, Jordan - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that security in Iraq has improved and that the country's needs must now begin to be addressed politically and diplomatically.

"There is security progress, but now we need a political solution," Obama said in the first news conference of his highly publicized trip abroad.

He reiterated his goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of becoming president. But he said he would consult with military commanders to determine how many troops to keep in the country to protect diplomatic and humanitarian operations, to train Iraqis and to conduct counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida in Iraq.


Obama sees 'security progress' in Iraq


Odd. That sounds so ... familiar. I swear I've heard/read some folks point that out before. But now that Obama has said it, well, it just has to be true. The discovery of the century, to be heralded by a new crowd of followers. No rebuking Obama there isn't. I'm just waiting for the shift ... that "we always said that, too" blah blah blabbity. rofl Turn, turn, turn ...

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 01:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.

See full article here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/559/

IP: Logged

pidaua
Knowflake

Posts: 67
From: Back in AZ with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for pidaua     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Are you kidding AG? All he had to do was schedule a trip downrange before political pressure from the US voters. He played up his "we must withdrawal ASAP" mantra until he got to Iraq / Afghanistan and saw what ALL the Military leaders have been saying.

Which leads me to a bigger point... He did not believe the testimony of the ground troops, Military leaders, journalists (not the antiwar wackos) and Iraq / Afghanistan's own governments. Therefore how is he going to effectively lead a country if he cannot trust our own Military and troops?

Even in his interview with the Stars and Stripes he condescendedly referred to the troops as "Young men and women doing great works" and the country should be proud. Where is the "I AM PROUD of the US men and women serving in combat and all that they have accomplished? I am PROUD to be an American?"

Yeah... he had to see it to believe it. I am still waiting to see what he actually believes in.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 06:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No, I'm not kidding. Neither is politifact. They've tracked him on this issue for quite some time, and don't find that he's been pushing two separate ideas on this issue.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 07:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's an out and out lie acoustic. O'Bomber has said repeatedly he would withdraw ALL US military forces from Iraq within 16 months of assuming the office of President...which he is not going to get.

He has said nothing about circumstances on the ground in Iraq being any deciding factor in his plans for withdrawal...until a few days ago. Nothing whatsoever. He has said...the withdrawal would proceed in a "responsible manner" but that's all blithering blather and bullshiiit.

Until Sunday a week ago, O'Bomber still had on his official website the message that the surge had been a failure...in spite of everything the reluctant press has said to the contrary.

Withdrawal of 1 to 2 combat brigades per month but all out within 16 months is exactly what O'Bomber said and continued to say...until a few days ago as he burnished his image with what NBC News termed his "Tour of Duty". What bullshiit. Every member of the US military should be itching to rip this arrogant little poser to shreds.

He's a creature of the crazy loons at daily kos and move on dot org and they aren't going to let O'Bomber off the hook on his withdrawal within 16 months position...until he's elected...if he's elected and then, one way or the other, O'Bomber won't need them any longer.

Now acoustic, I don't give a flying F what the St Pete Times has to say. I've heard O'Bomber say exactly what I said he said. BTW, I live in the St Petersburg area and the St Pete Times isn't fit for toilet paper. They're the same lying leftists as the NY Times, Associated Press and the rest of the morons in the so called main stream news...which isn't so mainstream any more.

Yesterday or perhaps today...depending on what time it is in Iraq, this moron gave a left handed compliment to the US military forces in Iraq...then gave them the slap in the face by insisting it was the tribal leaders and the Iraqi government which were really responsible for the success of the surge. In that, O'Bomber is echoing the sentiments of John Traitor Kerry who has insulted the US military forces in Iraq over and over.

Neither one of these socialist morons is fit to be Commander In Chief or be anywhere near the White House.

As usual, your sources stink to high heaven.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 08:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My sources are credible you mean. If you could disprove them, you would. Since you haven't, your opinion is to be discounted.

This is not the first time [here] that I've corrected the assumption that Obama calls for an uncontingent withdrawal.

IP: Logged

Eleanore
Moderator

Posts: 112
From: Okinawa, Japan
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 09:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Eleanore     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With no desire to drag on a "discussion" about what the real meaning or definition is behind everything down to prepositions, I'll make this quick.

It is your opinion that your sources are credible, AG. No one is obliged to believe what any press/media reports and many don't (I'd refer you to a poll but I won't waste your time or mine). No one can prove for certain that any news media is fully credible, but there are many arguments to be made (and which have been made) against them. However, refuting point by point and page by page what has been written is also a waste of time, sometimes in particular.


******

(in general)
I can't believe that anyone will refuse to see that the positions are being changed. Military leaders and many non-leftists have been speaking of progress and a reasonable approach to removing our troops once the Iraqis are capable of managing their own since the beginning of this war. Obama and Clinton, like most other left/left leaning politicians, rode the propoganda ticket of "bringing the troops back" until they couldn't ride it no more. Now, faced with the tactical realities on ground, they've changed ... no, wait, "expanded" or "clarified" ... their positions to what the right/non-left has been saying all along. And it would be the most hilarious and obvious fraud of our times if there weren't too many people willing to have the wool pulled over their eyes.

And where will the conspiracy theories go next? Obama is some sort of lefty messiah who single-handedly brought peace to the Middle East just by his holy presence ... and only now that's he's been there is real progress being made? Maybe people will soon be lining up just to touch his suit ... for a small party contribution, of course. No, wait. Can it be? Has he been mind-controlled by republican reptile aliens, too? Gasp.

The military leaders know far better than politicians let on about what our timetable over there should/does look like. And I find it hard to believe that anyone in Obama's position could be so woefully unaware. Which leads to one thing, imo. He's got the world's tiniest violin shoved so far up his sleeve that not everyone can see just how he and his are "handling" public opinion; they're just too busy swaying along to the repetitive albeit catchy tune.

IP: Logged

NosiS
Moderator

Posts: 145
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 10:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for NosiS     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And let it be known that it is fact and not opinion that Obama voted against the troop surge over a year-and-a-half ago. Surely, I'm sure he'd take the chance to erase that from his history as well. But it seems even the left-inclined media are catching on...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-surge.html

and here's a link to the video in working condition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4vlBgh7KLg

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 11:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I can't believe that anyone will refuse to see that the positions are being changed.

Obama 5 months ago:


    Sen. Obama: Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should not be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us.

    Now, I think we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests. But in order to do that, we have to send a clear signal to the Iraqi government that we are not going to be there permanently, which is why I have said that as soon as I take office, I will call in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We will initiate a phased withdrawal. We will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. We will give ample time for them to stand up to negotiate the kinds of agreements that will arrive at the political accommodations that are needed. We will provide them continued support.

    But it is important for us not to be held hostage by the Iraqi government in a policy that has not made us more safe, is distracting us from Afghanistan, and is costing us dearly not only and most importantly in the lost lives of our troops, but also the amount of money that we are spending that is unsustainable and will prevent us from engaging in the kinds of investments in America that will make us more competitive and more safe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23354734/page/9/


Obama 10 months ago:

    Obama laid out his four-point strategy for Iraq today before a packed crowd at Ashton University in Clinton, Iowa. It is comprised of: 1) Commencing in an immediate withdrawal of one or two brigades (3,500 or 7,000 troops) a month; 2) a pressing effort for political stability, with aid from a United Nations constitutional convention; 3) increased regional diplomacy, especially with leaders of Syria and Iran; and 4) humanitarian intervention and financial aid to help stem the effects of current and future sectarian violence.

    Although the Obama plan calls for a remaining residual military presence to protect American diplomatic and military personnel and continue hunting al-Qaeda, the Illinois senator did not, in his speech or in an extended overview of his plan, reveal exactly how many troops would remain. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/12/358319.aspx


    In calling for a gradual withdrawal of combat troops, while saying that an unspecified number of American forces must remain, Mr. Obama is falling directly in line with the public sentiment on the war and the path forward. Several of his other Democratic rivals, though, claimed that Mr. Obama was taking a step backward by not imposing a specific deadline for withdrawal. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/obamas-iraq-plan/?hp

Obama 20 months ago:


    Obama said the withdrawal of American combat troops could be coupled with a stepped-up effort to train Iraqi troops, with more special-operations units working as advisers with Iraqi forces.

    "We know these countries want us to fail, and we should remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism and Iran's nuclear ambitions," Obama said.

    "But neither Iran nor Syria want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, terrorism, refugees, and violence, as it could have a destabilizing effect throughout the entire region -- and within their own countries." http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/20/obama.iraq/index.html

Are you satisfied yet that his position hasn't changed? So much for the hilarious fraud. So much for the claims that he's always just wanted to pull everyone out.

quote:
It is your opinion that your sources are credible, AG.

If you'd like to prove otherwise, I'm open to it. If you just wish to opine yourself, I don't find much value in it. What I propose is really very simple. Just pick a story from today's paper that you believe is wrong, and fact check it. If you're right bring it to me. If you're wrong, then you'll know why I don't give much credence to the partisan desire to frame media as incredible.

quote:
And where will the conspiracy theories go next?

What conspiracy theory was there in this thread?

quote:
Obama is some sort of lefty messiah who single-handedly brought peace to the Middle East just by his holy presence ... and only now that's he's been there is real progress being made?

Interesting that Obama said he would act on actionable intelligence against terrorists in Pakistan if Musharraf didn't, and Bush did just that.

Interesting that Obama said he'd talk with Iran, and Bush is in the process of doing just that.

Interesting that Obama gave a general guideline of a 16 month troop withdrawal, and Maliki [Prime Minister of Iraq] said that Obama's plan would be good - conditions permitting.

You won't ever find me calling Obama the savior of the Middle East, but he's a lot less far off in what he says than the Right seems to believe.

quote:
The military leaders know far better than politicians let on about what our timetable over there should/does look like. And I find it hard to believe that anyone in Obama's position could be so woefully unaware. Which leads to one thing, imo. He's got the world's tiniest violin shoved so far up his sleeve that not everyone can see just how he and his are "handling" public opinion; they're just too busy swaying along to the repetitive albeit catchy tune.

As mentioned above Obama's first consultation would be with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

__________________________

Nosis's post is true.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 22, 2008 11:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
acoustic, let's dispose of the unpleasantness up front. Your sources are those sources the American people no longer trust. They have little credibility with the American people as evidenced by the Pew Poll.

Eleanore recognizes the truth that bantering back and forth is of little value and we're not going to convince, one side to the other.

What I'm going to say now is my own opinion and it's based on what I see.

Hillary Clinton is a much more seasoned and viable candidate for President of the United States than Barack Obama whose resume is so thin he couldn't be competitive in a job for city manager of a large city, let alone President of the United States.

I think Obama is going to lose if he turns out to be the eventual nominee of the democrat party, which he isn't at this point. That point will come when the convention convenes. By that time, I expect Obama will be seen as the empty suit he really is with no chance to win in November.

It's crystal clear Obama is tacking back and forth attempting to be all things to all people. He's attempting to keep his leftist base in place while at the same time tacking to the middle to snooker the suckers. It's not going to work.

His "clarifications" of his shifting positions are truly flip-flops and they're designed to deceive voters. Voters have seen this all before.

In the case of our military forces, Obama is up against the most trusted institution in the United States and he's constantly belittling them and attempting to say their efforts and sacrifices are to no good end. He refuses to say the surge was the right policy and refuses to give the military it's due credit.

That's only going to work with the true believers, the Kool-Aid drinkers of his leftist cadres. It's not going to sell with the mainstream which is center-right.

This poser who has no military service whatsoever is attempting to tell a 4 star General with 35 years of military service that he was wrong and continues to be wrong. It's not going to fly.

Obama is running a deceptive campaign and the press is attempting to get him elected. You have no idea how many people resent the hell out of the press taking sides and attempting to influence this election.

The press efforts to get John Kerry elected backfired too. The press gave Kerry about 75+ positive coverage compared to about 37% positive for Bush. The press support amounted to about 3 billion dollars of unpaid campaign contributions for Kerry. Kerry still lost.

Obama, if he is the eventual democrat nominee is going to lose to McCain.

Just to be clear here, John McCain was not my choice as the Republican nominee. He has a lot of baggage with conservatives...as I've detailed here in a thread devoted to what that baggage is. "The Case Against John McCain. Still, John McCain is head and shoulders above Barack Obama in any objective assessment of qualifications for the job of President. Further, John McCain was right about inserting additional military forces into Iraq...the surge and Obama was catastrophically wrong. Furthermore, Obama refuses to acknowledge what everyone can see; that the surge worked. McCain is right in that if Obama had had his way he wouldn't have dared stage a political event in Iraq because his life would have been in danger...or the terrorist forces would already have taken over the country because there would be no US forces in Iraq.

Let's be clear on Obama's withdrawal plan. According to Obama's schedule which he pushed in the US Senate, ALL US military forces would have been out of Iraq in March of this year...2008. That was his original position, his plan to throw the war to the terrorists.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 12:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Eleanore recognizes the truth that bantering back and forth is of little value and we're not going to convince, one side to the other.

Just for clarification, I can be swayed. Just not without a good case.

___________________

Hillary should be considered to be out of the picture until such a time as she either gets put on the ticket, or Obama screws up so bad that the public turns on him in a major way.

Obama hasn't shifted from the reasonable stance of knowing that American presence will have to remain in Iraq until things are truly stable.

He did oppose the surge, and he was wrong on that. I don't think we'll hear him saying that he was right all along on that point.

Your point about Obama originally wanting troops out by now is true. If, by magic, his plan was tested out at that time it wouldn't have worked. I'm sure he would have been warned by the military as well as by the Iraqi government that it wouldn't have worked ahead of time. I'm also sure that if his plan had been enacted that it would have been obvious very quickly that it wasn't working.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 09:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Hillary should be considered to be out of the picture until such a time as she either gets put on the ticket, or Obama screws up so bad that the public turns on him in a major way."

You forget, the public already did speak on the subject of O'Bomber v Hillary. Hillary got more popular vote than O'Bomber. O'Bomber is the candidate of the DNC Party elites who finagled the Florida and Michigan vote and disenfranchised millions of Hillary voters. It's the dem party elites who will desert O'Bomber the instant it looks like he's a loser in November.

"Obama hasn't shifted from the reasonable stance of knowing that American presence will have to remain in Iraq until things are truly stable."

O'Bomber has said repeatedly and directly that he would remove all US military forces from Iraq within 16 months...period. We both know that's not going to happen so O'Bomber is lying to his Kool-Aid drinking leftist base and we both know it.

"He did oppose the surge, and he was wrong on that. I don't think we'll hear him saying that he was right all along on that point."

O'Bomber has been asked directly by the press if he was wrong to oppose the surge and he refuses to acknowledge he was wrong. Instead, he goes off on a tangent and attempts to redefine the question so he can appear to be right and avoid saying he was wrong.

Something we can agree on acoustic. O'Bomber would have egg all over his face IF his withdrawal by March 2008 rhetoric had been implemented.

But that brings up another question. The question of O'Bomber's lack of judgment. President of the United States is not an entry level job and O'Bomber lacks the necessary judgment, not to mention experience in dealing with the economy, the war and foreign policy.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 12:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Here, O'Bomber says he won't necessarily listen to what commanders on the ground in Iraq are telling him about what's going on there and therefore whether or not it's time to withdraw.

Got that? This empty headed little moron isn't going to take the advice of the very people who are fighting the war, who understand both the nature and capabilities of our terrorist enemies but O'Bomber is going to use his own best judgment...which he has already shown doesn't exist.

He also seems to think Bush is wrong for listening to those commanders on the ground in Iraq.

General O'Bomber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs19D3LLn7Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z4ba2KkIwI&feature=related

The ever shifting positions on Iraq by O'Bomber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4XY1SB7FFU&feature=related

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 01:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Your first video, while stating that he wouldn't feel compelled to be locked in to what the military on the ground says, also says that he would not lock in to the attitude that he has to get everyone out in 16 months. Nowhere did he say he wouldn't listen to the military commanders.
_________________________________

In the second video we have the blond woman not fully stating Obama's plan as it is listed on his website (she mentions that she is quoting his plan from his website). She, in fact, promotes this idea that he's said he'll get everyone out in 16 months, when his website says:

    Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. He will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism.

She goes on to get opinions from officers and soldiers about whether they agree with a timetable or conditions-based. They all, of course, say conditions-based, but we all know by now that Obama would be interested in the conditions in Iraq prior to pulling out.
She then goes on to make excuses as to why we need to stay, which is apparently to ensure the transit of all of our equipment. Obviously that logistical task would have to be handled, but as Obama said in the previous video he will not be locked into an exact timetable of 16 months. I'm also quite certain there is more than one way of completing logistical tasks (i.e. Blackwater, Halliburton, etc.).
____________________________________

The third video is damning to Obama on the surge front. The second contradiction it tries to make a case for falls flat. I myself have shown that Obama never said let's get everyone out regardless of the conditions on the ground.
Combes' question about McCain following Obama's lead on the issue of Afghanistan was pretty funny. I guess we can add that to our list of what Obama's said that Republicans have turned around shown endorsed in word or action.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 03:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's obvious O'Bomber isn't listening to the Generals and Admirals.

A couple of days ago, O'Bomber was talking about ending the war...notice, ending the war in Iraq, NOT WINNING THE WAR IN IRAQ and transferring some of those forces to Afghanistan.

Notice also, those troops whom leftists said they wanted to help by bringing them home don't want to come home without finishing the job in Iraq. They agree with the General and with McCain that there should be no withdrawal date and no timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Events on the ground in Iraq should shape the withdrawal policy...so say the troops.

BTW, that blond you mentioned is a reporter for ABC News.

Just in case you don't know, Afghanistan is a NATO mission, not a US mission. For some time, both Bush and McCain have attempted to get our NATO partners to increase their own troop levels in Afghanistan. Both France and Germany now say they intend to send additional forces to Afghanistan.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 23, 2008 05:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's obvious that Obama spect time listening to the Officers while on his trip.

Obama's "end" and Republican's "win" are virtually identical.

quote:
They agree with the General and with McCain that there should be no withdrawal date and no timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. Events on the ground in Iraq should shape the withdrawal policy...so say the troops.

They've been told for years that this is how it would go down. Are you surprised that they agree with the philosophy they've been operating under?

quote:
BTW, that blond you mentioned is a reporter for ABC News.

And?

quote:
For some time, both Bush and McCain have attempted to get our NATO partners to increase their own troop levels in Afghanistan.

Bush and McCain? Don't you mean Bush suggested that just a few months ago in April, which is *after* Obama suggested that we need to go back to the war on terrorism in Afghanistan? And McCain, wasn't his first NATO push just on the 9th of this very month?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 25, 2008 06:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know why you and the Messiah O'Bomber can't get this through your heads but it's Osama bin Laden himself who declared Iraq as the "central battlefield in the war against the west".

What's hard about understanding that?

Further, O'Bomber is a gaffe machine. He's declared al-Qaeda is reconstituting in "Afghanistan". Taliban perhaps or they're trying but al-Qaeda...no.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 4415
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 25, 2008 07:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Gaffe machine, because he said they're moving to Afghanistan? Really?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080723/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/al_qaida_afghanistan

WASHINGTON - Al-Qaida's foreign fighters who have for years bedeviled Iraq are increasingly going to Afghanistan to fight instead, the Iraqi ambassador to the United States said Wednesday.

"We have heard reports recently that many of the foreign fighters that were in Iraq have left, either back to their homeland or going to fight in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is now seeming to be more suitable for al-Qaida fighters," said Ambassador Samir Sumaida'ie.

_____________________

Next!

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted July 25, 2008 10:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Really acoustic. This information is contradicted by Iraqi intelligence...those who should know better than a non combatant.

Seems you are always grasping at straws when you formulate your arguments. You should pay more attention to experts and a whole lot less attention to the media hound who is determined to lose the Iraq War...Barack O'Bomber who is using Afghanistan as the excuse for shutting down the war in Iraq before the job is done there.

This is the Marxist moron who believes he campaigned in 57 states...oh and he still had one to go...making the composition of the United States...58 states.

This is the Marxist moron who said Iran is a tiny country which poses no threat. 2 days latter, the Marxist moron says his position has always been that Iran poses a GRAVE THREAT.

This is the Marxist moron who said the DC gun ban was constitutional...a total ban on hand weapons of any type. When the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban, this Marxist moron said it had always been his position that the 2nd Amendment sets forth an "individual right" for citizens to own and possess private firearms.

This is the Marxist moron who refused to acknowledge the surge worked as planned. This is the Marxist moron who said he still would have been against the surge..even knowing what he and the rest of the world now knows...that it worked as planned.

This is the Marxist moron looking for an excuse to stop the war in Iraq rather than winning the war in Iraq. And this is the Marxist moron up whose ass you have your head. Since he has his head up the ass of Karl Marx, you have your head up the ass of Karl Marx by proxy.

Now acoustic, this is your chance to post here reports by US military commanders, NATO military commanders and/or intelligence officers of the United States or NATO allies that al-Qaeda is reconstituting in AFGHANISTAN.

Iraq
Al Qaida groups 'leaving Iraq for Sudan, Somalia'
By Basil Adas, Correspondent
Published: July 08, 2008, 00:09


Baghdad: Some groups of Al Qaida terror network in Iraq have started leaving the country towards other hot spots in Africa like Sudan and Somalia, security sources tell Gulf News.

A key reason behind the change in strategy by the so-called Al Qaida Organisation in Mesopotamia is the intensity of the latest military strikes launched by Iraqi and US forces against the network, which has been the major challenge to restoring the stability of Iraq, the sources said.

"Our intelligence information indicates the withdrawal of certain groups of Al Qaida from Iraq because of the military strikes. Many of them have escaped through the borders with Syria and Iran to hotter zones such as Somalia and Sudan," Major General Hussain Ali Kamal, head of the Investigation and Information Agency at the Interior Ministry, told Gulf News.

"I believe this is the beginning of the complete withdrawal of Al Qaida from Iraqi territory."

A source at Iraqi Ministry of National Security said that documents and letters found in hideouts of "some elements of Al Qaida" during search operations in Sunni suburbs in Baghdad, which were previously under the control of Al Qaida, "prove these elements left Iraq for Somalia and Sudan".

The information, which could not be confirmed by independent sources, could represent a victory for the Iraqi government, headed by Nouri Al Maliki.

The number of bloody attacks by Al Qaida has declined remarkably in Baghdad in the past 12 months, an indication the terror network faces a difficult situation on the ground, said Major General Abdul Jalil Khalaf, former police commander in Basra province.

"This also highlights the increasingly improving performance of the Iraqi armed forces and the speed by which they can operate in different places," Khalaf told Gulf News.

Khalaf, who is said to be considered for a top post at the Ministry of Defence, said the recent campaign against the Shiite militias in Basra negatively affected Al Qaida.

"Al Qaida began to lose a lot of sympathy on the Sunni streets after realising that Al Maliki government launched a war against the Shiites fighters, believed to be backed by Iran."

The latest political rapprochement between Iraq and other Arab states has also led to the weakening Al Qaida and "its gradual withdrawal from Iraq", he explained. But Khalaf warned that Al Qaida will not withdraw fully from Iraq. "This will take years," he said.
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10226998.html

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a