Bush: Bin Laden ordered non-Iraq terror attacks »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 year, 3 months ago367 Comments Report this Story
Seeking to rally support for the war, President Bush released intelligence asserting that Osama bin Laden in 2005 ordered creation of a terrorist unit to hit targets outside Iraq, including the United States.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 367
-
50%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
OK. But this is just them telling us that this happened. We have no proof. And they have given us plenty of reason to doubt their word.
I don't buy it. Also, the war on the emotion "terror" has nothing to do with the war in Iraq according to the administration. So I don't see how this will bolster the war in Iraq when they are not related.
Reply-
60%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
http://news.netscape.com/story/2007/05/23/bush-...
I always believed there was more to the story than was being told. Classfied information right now is still classified, but every wacko and press reporter thinks they ought to print it for the world to see immediately. They've never had to fight in a war. The more information you have that they don't have the better your chances. There is more information I'm sure right now, but it is classified, and will remain that way until we no longer need the information. You don't give away the farm. This is war strategy, planning...plain and simple.
Reply-
100%
LordyLordy1 year, 3 months ago
We didn't tell the Germans nor the Japanese that we had their secret electronic transmission codes, nor did we tell the Japanese we only had rubber tanks and phonographs up on the cliffs in California, not real defenses. We dropped plastic dummys with parachutes over Germany during WWII just to keep them off guard. There were mistakes made during WWII, during Korea, during Viet Nam, and Iraq is no different. Mistakes sometimes just happen, in spite of your best efforts. Which of us haven't made mistakes raise your hand. Mine isn't raised.
Reply -
0%
tkyrchncs1 year, 3 months ago
While it is sometimes necessary to keep information secret, this is a BIG problem for a democracy which needs to be run in the clear light. Too many things are unnecessarily kept secret by our government because any idiot can classify information, but committee review is required to declassify it. Whatever you may believe about secrets it is not reasonable or even constitutional to go to war for secret reasons.
Reply -
0%
scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
Lordy, Lordy, I hate to remind you and rub it in, but many of these reporters actually have fought in wars, unlike your hero Georgie Bush, who has never fought in a war and indeed avoided Vietnam because his Daddy got him moved up to the front of the line to join the Texas Air National Guard, from which he went AWOL to drink beer, snort coke, and get his girlfriend an abortion.
Reply
-
-
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 3 months ago
The Dumbya dictatorship is desperate to complete its mission for Big Oil. The illegal Iraq invasion is a colossal failure by any measure and continues to be, draining the nation's blood and treasure while it continues to sow ill-will in the international arena and boosts the recruitment of terrorists, many of whom would've never considered that course if our Born Again Mass Murderer-in-Chief had a normal brain.
It is interesting to note that - without the consent of Congress - the Dumbya dictatorship has been giving support to terrorist groups sympathetic to al Qaeda to destabilize Iran and its proxies in Lebanon. Is that not a little hypocritical?
Nothing is ever learned by the Dumbya dictatorship. It never analyzes. We can only expect more blowback and we can only expect what the Dumbya dictatorship excels at: terrorizing Americans with its incessant fear campaigns to sponsor its serial wars.
Reply -
0%
star531 year, 3 months ago
total proof is allways IMPOSIBLE and bush haters always seem to have a BUT
Reply
-
-
0%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
What Bush is admitting is that al Qaeda set up shop in a country in which they had no operations until we invaded and removed the one person that kept them from operating in Iraq.
Man, Bush supporters have got to be the most stupid people in the world. He comes out and tells them that AFTER we invaded al Qaeda was going to use Iraq as a base of operations and they use this to show Bush-haters how we must fight terrorists in Iraq! What a bunch of idiots.
These morons are wholly incapable of seeing just how stupid and needless invading Iraq was. Imagine if Bush and his administration weren't so ideological and they paid attention to the outgoing Clinton administration warnings about al Qaeda and the Presidential Daily Brief of August 6, 2001. Imagine, if we completed the job in Afghanistan and continued to contain Saddam. Saddam would have been contained and by default helped us control al Qaeda and we would have captured Bin Laden in Tora Bora!
What a bunch of idiots.
Reply-
0%
rimbaud1 year, 3 months ago
They did not have a base of operations in Iraq, but now Iraq is jihadi recruitment central and AlQaeda's live terrorist training lab. Iraq is probably worse than Afghanistan ever was? What do we do now? Do we redeploy from Afghanistan to Iraq?
Reply -
0%
Twistoflex1 year, 3 months ago
Al Qaeda is actually a tiny fraction of the insurgency in Iraq. Most of these al Qaeda operatives are foreign interlopers. They are tolerated because over 70% of ALL factions have no problem with people taking pot-shots at Americans.
A US withdrawal from Iraq would be lethal to al Qaeda. They would be extricated and exterminated in short order by Iraqis, who would regard them as the cancer that they are.
We are there for one reason - the same reason that brought us to Iraq and the same reason that had the Dumbya dictatorship planning this war from its earliest days of jurist appointment which has also been illustrated by Cheney's maps of Iraq's hydrocarbon fields in March 2001 - Iraq's huge oil reserves. There are $ trillions in oil profits for Big Oil execs and the Bush crime family.
Reply
-
-
67%
scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
Shrub was probably thinking of quoting FDR: "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
But naturally, President Malaprop would have garbled up the quote and said in his typically awkward and unintentionally ironic way:
"We have nothing but fear itself."
Because that's all Shrub has left: FEAR!
Reply -
100%
ETproductions1 year, 3 months ago
"NEW LONDON, Conn. - President Bush, stressing that Americans face an ongoing threat from terrorists, shared intelligence on Wednesday asserting that Osama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit inside Iraq to hit U.S. targets.
This is classic Bush newspeak "logic" Where is Mr. Spock when America desperately needs a leader who can manage logical thought.
"We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."
The Proof? They say they are coming here!
What's even more tragic? They weren't "there" till Bush went in and made a total bloody mess of things so they could COME there!
Not crazy enough? When we had Osama bin Laden pinned down in Tora Bora, someone in the top echelons of the Bush Administration refused to commit US forces to his capture or kill. They DELIBERATELY let him slip into safe haven in Pakistan's tribal zones. WHY? So King George could be the Commander Guy and funnel money to the military industrial complex forever.
Reply -
100%
tiredofnonsense1 year, 3 months ago
"'Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America,' Bush told the graduating class seated in a stadium under bright sunshine along the Thames River"
This is the heart and soul of the situation in Iraq, The Iraq Study Group even said if we fail in Iraq it will be a historic victory for Al Quada, and historic victories are what they depend on for recruitment.
Reply -
100%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
They made up reasons for why we went to war. Why wouldn't they make up reasons to keep us in it?
Reply-
83%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
All lies to start the invasion. Saddam was contained, he had no WMDs (which the UN weapons inspectors on the ground from Nov. 27 2002 until they were forced out on March 18, 2003 by Bush's ultimatum to Saddam and Sons to leave). His military was in a shambles due to 10 years of sanctions resulting from Desert Storm.
Bush lied us into invading Iraq, that's for sure. No doubt about it.
Reply -
0%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
Why would you defend them? That is what I can't understand. Why is it so important to you that Bush is right? How much are you getting out of it?
Reply-
100%
jeffery11 year, 3 months ago
As far as I can tell it's just the way right-wingers are wired to operate. They must support their leader no matter how bad he or she is. because they are naturally authoritarian. It's actually religious because they accept what the party puts out without any analysis. They'd fit in great in the Soviet Union.
I've got to search for some research into their mindset and psychology because I'm at a loss myself.
Reply
-
-
75%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
no lies?
Colin Powell read a stolen United Kingdom college kid's paper in his 'the case against Iraq' speech, shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
A FOREIGNER, a UK kid, wanking off on some essay paper, trying to impress his professors, helped set US foreign policy, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
A UK college kid, probably never set foot in Iraq. The top general in the US is spoon fed his paper like it was hard fact. OMFG
At least nobody lied, they just didn't bother to check any of their facts or sources, as long as it supported the war they wanted for so many years.
Lie?
Would you be more comfortable with the term 'verbal miscue?'
F-ups or liars or both, name your poison and face reality
Reply-
100%
scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
DeadManTalkin: Powell was just a pawn. BushCo used him to float disinformation, which they knew was disinformation.
They were just betting (and hoping) it would all work out and they would never held responsible.
What would you expect from a "Texas wildcatter" who bet his Daddy's friends' money on a bunch of dry holes and never had to pay back a single solitary red cent?
Every time I see Bush I see a sixty year old man who behaves like a cocky sixteen-year-old rich kid. Is it any wonder why we're in such a mess behind this nitwit?
Reply
-
-
0%
rightfromwrong1 year, 3 months ago
There have been nothing but lies coming from Bush and his henchmen....it was about oil and the Jewish lobby groups who fund both the Democrats and Republican to the tune of 50%. This war is about the U.S. flooding the world with their monopoly money so the rich can have more control over the world.
Reply -
90%
star531 year, 3 months ago
hamy you seem to forget that the dem and the rep both ok'ed the war and don't even think about this nonsence they has diff. intellence.now you lefted want cut run so you can keep on killing babies(abortion)and have them come here and they will come!!!!!
Reply
-
-
91%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
Had we invaded Indonesia, the same press release would have been issed, but with a different Country named.
Reply -
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
Whenever Bush gets desperate he plays the "Al Qaeda card". Bush doesn't care about fighting terrorism. If he did he would NOT have signed off on a deal to create a safe haven for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/...
Reply -
0%
Dave591 year, 3 months ago
However the time line is not correct. Bin Laden had no influence in Iraq until we removed Saddam. It seems that 2005 was post Saddam.
So who allowed them to set up a terrorist organization to supposedly threaten the US? If Saddam was not in charge just who was?
It appears we were in charge at that time. If we had not displaced Saddam he would not have allowed the incursion of Bin Laden into his country and it would not be a base of operations for terrorists.
Having said this I will take a flying guess and say Bush has again put the cart before the horse in an attempt to justify his foolish invasion and again try to use the scare tactic to bolster his failing administration.
The fact stands that there was no Al-Qaeda threat from Iraq prior to our invasion. There is now that threat. It stands to reason then that we have allowed the proliferation of the terrorist network by removing the control (Saddam) that kept it out of Iraq.
Reply-
67%
Leemck021 year, 3 months ago
This news is from 5 years ago. Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. We went to Iraq instead of Afghanistan where Bin Laden was reported to be and more certain where Al Qaeda was operating its strong hold. Al Qaeda fought us here already and several other nations. The smart thing is implement 9/11 report. Remember,thanks to Saddam being eliminated, who did use Abu Ghraib effectively (in your face Gitmo), to keep stability; this void opened al Qaeda to franchise its operations in Iraq and gained credibility with others wanting to bring the fight to the US. This is not news, this is history that we need to learn from. We already have to fight them here if plots have been foiled. The poor prosecution of strategy now or for the future isn't giving the bang for the buck. Implement the 9/11 lessons learned and hope we have money to boost the FBI and others who are the best line of defense to keep the fight off our streets. P.S. You need your National Guard here for those reasons.
Reply
-
-
-
86%
hamy1 year, 3 months ago
That is ridiculous. It doesn't even make any sense. Iraq and 9/11 were not and still are not related. Read once in a while.
Reply-
0%
GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago
So by virtue of your specious logic, anyone who defends their own country by shooting at an invading army (no-fly zones) is a terrorist.
All of the other 'data' from the press release is self-serving supposition and speculation provided by erronious information that has been thoroughly debunked as patently false.
Reply -
0%
nakedtruth1 year, 3 months ago
{Saddam funded terrorists and sponsored terrorists.}
Saddam didn't fund Al Qaeda. Saddam did fund the MEK though. And guess who's supporting the MEK now? BUSH!!!!!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB18Ak...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/21/03557/5532
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7751085/
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp...
Finally are you aware of Pakistan's funding of Al Qaeda? Paksitan, using CIA money, created the group that would become Al Qaeda. In April 2001 Pakistan's intelligence chief wired $100K to Mohammad Atta, effectively funding the 9/11 attacks. And in 2005 Pakistan funneled $500K to Al Qaeda by paying off "tribal debts" to the group.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm
Reply -
100%
0gramstransfat1 year, 3 months ago
You're going to believe reports from the White House website? A report written by the Administration?
Reply -
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 3 months ago
-9/11 showed that terrorists can strike at America.
And the first WTC bomging and OKC were what warmups?
-Saddam funded terrorists and sponsored terrorists.
He supported some groups fighting in Palestine and some groups fighting in Iran. Not a group that had world wide range like al Queda
Saddam was a threat that America could no longer take lightly after 9/11 due to the effectiveness of al-Qaeda.
A petty tyrant like Saddam was never really a threat to us in the first place. Even on his best day. And after the first war and canctions. both Powell and Rice stated that he was contained and had not been able to reconsitute his WMD program early in 2001.
Reply -
100%
scriblerus11 year, 3 months ago
Great moniker, King1Con. Why is it that cons are so easy to con? And why is it you continue to post White House propagand
-
-
