From an interview of George Bush by ABC News's Martha Raddatz: BUSH: One of the major theaters against al-Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al-Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al-Qaeda was hoping to take... RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded. BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? ****************************** What Bush should have said: "YOU WANT THE TRUTH!!!" "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" ****************************** You retards know precious little about tactical military strategy. This makes you susceptible to all sorts of propaganda. Bush is saying that because of what he knows and he knows what they are attempting to ignorantly imply. Ignorance may be to easy though I think there is something more nefarious going on with some. I believe some see it fully well and use the confidentiality of military strategy against America and its sitting presidential administration in their reporting. Iraq as opposed to Afghanistan was a genius strategy in the war on terror. Much to the chagrin of the Democrats hoping for lots of Afghanistan propaganda like they had in Vietnam.
I agree. Iraq was a magnet for that element, causing Al Qaeda to focus most of their resources in Iraq. Many argue that the Iraq war boosted Al Qaeda's membership. They poured in from the Arab world and then they died. Fine Any more volunteers? We still have plenty of troops on the ground to take care of them. I was on the primary FOB that they launched Operation Lighting Hammer from in '07 taking out Al Qaeda elements that fled into the Diyala River valley after being purged from Baqoubah a couple of months earlier. It was a sight to see. I love war.
Oh, you have nothing to worry about... The only thing better than having a Commander in Chief that fled the country during the draft (Bill Clinton) and his Vice President, someone whose rich daddy hired personal bodyguards, charged only with the duty of protecting daddy's little boy during his disproportionately short tenure overseas... (3 months? Was it even that long? Of course, we're talking about Al Gore, a man that has burned more fossil fuels in a year through his travels than an entire city does in a decade, and has the audacity to suggest people inflate their tires more, or buy more economical vehicles on their way to the store to buy his DVD to pay for the white mansion he bought after he lost the election.) - is having a man elected that cannot even provide any paperwork proving that he was born on US soil, but I digress, and migrate back towards environmentalism: GRANTED - I am well aware that the Earth is a series of ecologically linked biomes (ecosystems dependent on communities of plants, animals, and microscopic organisms, living in relative equilibrium.) AND - I firmly believe we can feasibly shift our dependence away from carbon-based pollutants that give us energy and propulsion. Early technological advances were discovered in the early 1900's, but rarely spoken of since. All I'm trying to say here is this: People elected Obama under the misnomer of "CHANGE." Now that oil prices have plummeted, due to the threat of exploring alternative sources of energy (something both candidates supported, mind you) - the public will not see it as important as when gas prices were nearing $5/gal. The focus of the newly-appointed EPA staff will not be as urgent, now that foreign suppliers are not charging as much for crude. Speaking of change, oddly enough - And I know this has probably been mentioned by someone else, but while eating lunch at McDonalds the other day, I couldn't help but watch the TV and wonder how "Change" is going to occur as I watched Obama nominate nearly everyone from the Clinton administration into his cabinet. Granted, the "talking head" of the USA is going to be a different person now, and I will admit, Bush had his fair share of media fuckups, but I defy you to find criticism of Obama's public appearance fuckups on national television like this one (when his teleprompter goes out) that's been preserved on the Internet, along with others: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJSVPAx8xc
Thx but I wasn't in the service I was embedded with them as a contractor. I was more of an observer. Bush said better to fight them in Iraq than at home. I didn't buy that at first, not until after I went to Iraq. We've yet to have another attack on our home soil after 911. Where have nearly all attacks on Americans by Al Qaeda occurred for the last five years? How many Al Qaeda are now left in Iraq? I know tons have died and I haven't even read the statistics. Iraq was like a flykiller bait strip drawing in the jihadist mentalities. It was a purging of a radical element. It didn't kill it but it certainly cleaned things up a bit. My respect goes out to the soldiers who died and were wounded, or who somehow lost all they had back home while putting their lives on the line in a Mad Max environment. My respect and heart goes out to those soldiers who lost their minds in Iraq.
Well there are more ways then the military service to actually serve your country Those who remember Vietnam and the political catch 22 being played out and what was reported as opposed to what was happening. In other words those involved in central command remember I'm referring to these war hardened military guys eat sleep and shit military history and strategy. The ones who have it practically oozing out of their pores knew what a catastrophe it would be attracting all those foreign fighters to the difficult mountains of Afghanistan. But also and maybe more importantly they knew that taking their eye off of the ball in Iraq to play ball in Afghanistan would have a terrible destabilizing effect that they would pay for later as well as in Afghanistan. There WAS a definite AlQaeda Hussein connection and at the least a massive risk of Saddam supplying fighters in Afghanistan with weapons of our worse nightmares. Remember British PM Browns campaign rhetoric and how he did an about face after he actually got in office and was privy to real intelligence information? Well Remember Obama's campaign rhetoric about the solution to all our ills being the removal of U.S. troops? Well after a few meetings with the Bush administration that changed REAL QUICK didn't it?
At some point I have to stop giving the media the benefit of doubt that they simply are not seeing it. At some point I realize it's not just ignorance and being blinded by their philosophical nature. I can forgive ignorance but betrayal of the truth once realized in a time of war to me is treason.
Al Qaida (or most other terrrorist group) exists where US intelligence dominates. Al Qaida in US when Bush needs excuse to activate Mid-east war. That was 911 attack. Al Qaida is everywhere in Iraq to bomb innocent civilians when US occupies Iraq. Strange to say, under the Saddam regime, there was no Al Qaida. Al Qaida seems only exist where the regime being controlled by US. So we see no Al qaida in Syria and Iran. But they appear to attack ordinary people when the government either is controlled by US intelligence or supported by US intelligence. That's why you see Al Qaida attacks in US, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iraq (after it is occupied by US). Because where they are protected by the intelligence, worked as a whip to beat people. When government want money and power, they beat the people with this whip (Al Qaida terror attack) People feel hurt then give up their civil rights and money to the government. DOJ got the Patriot Act. Pentagon got fat budget and Mid-east war. Al Qaida works for US and under the protect of pentagon and US intelligence. That's why it only exists in Iraq after US invasion. So Bush says "so what?"
THIS INTERNET RUMAOR WAS VERIFIED BY SNOPES.COM AND WAS FOUND TO BE................................. TRUE.
Didnt he just call up like 17,000 more troops? Have you checked with LtC Havoc to see if he is going back to the sand box?
