Bush declassifies al-Qaida intelligence
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
WASHINGTON -
President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that
Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside
Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.
ADVERTISEMENT
The information mirrored a classified bulletin from the
Homeland Security Department in March 2005, reporting that bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to plan potential strikes in the U.S. The warning was described at the time as credible but not specific and did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.
The declassification of the intelligence came a day before Bush was scheduled to speak about terrorism at the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Bush, who is battling Democrats in Congress over spending for the unpopular war in Iraq, will argue that the terrorist threat to America is real, said Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser. She said Bush would talk about why Iraq is an important battleground in fighting terrorism abroad to prevent attacks on U.S. soil and highlight previously reported successes in foiling terrorist attacks.
The Bush White House has intermittently declassified and made public sensitive intelligence information to help rebut critics or defend programs or actions against possibly adverse decisions in the Congress or the courts. On a few occasions, the declassified materials were intended as proof that terrorists see Iraq as a critical staging ground for global operations.
Democrats and other critics have accused Bush of selectively declassifying intelligence, including portions of a sensitive National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, to justify the U.S.-led invasion on the ground that
Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. That assertion proved false.
Townsend, reading from notes, said the declassified intelligence showed that in January 2005, bin Laden tasked al-Zarqawi with organizing the cell. Al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaida's Iraq operations, was killed there in June 2006 by a U.S. airstrike.
"We know from the intelligence community that al-Zarqawi welcomed the tasking and claimed he already had some good proposals," Townsend said.
She said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on al-Qaida planning to attack sites outside Iraq, including the United States. She did not disclose where in the United States those attacks were being plotted.
Around the same time, Abu Fajah al-Libi, a senior al-Qaida manager, suggested that bin Laden send Rabia to Iraq to actually help al-Zarqawi plan the external operations, Townsend said. It is unclear whether Rabia went to Iraq, she said.
She said the information was declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism
as president, Bush saw that osama wanted to use Iraq as a base of operations. should we have left in 05 or 06 like many have been screaming about? I wont argue there is more of an argument now for them to come home, being that Iraq might be ready to protect themselves more so now then 2 years ago. (but I dont really know for sure, I've never been)
President Bush, trying to defend his war strategy, declassified intelligence Tuesday asserting that
Osama bin Laden ordered a top lieutenant in early 2005 to form a terrorist cell that would conduct attacks outside
Iraq — and that the United States should be the top target.
ADVERTISEMENT
The information mirrored a classified bulletin from the
Homeland Security Department in March 2005, reporting that bin Laden had enlisted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, his senior operative in Iraq, to plan potential strikes in the U.S. The warning was described at the time as credible but not specific and did not prompt the administration to raise its national terror alert level.
The declassification of the intelligence came a day before Bush was scheduled to speak about terrorism at the
U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
Bush, who is battling Democrats in Congress over spending for the unpopular war in Iraq, will argue that the terrorist threat to America is real, said Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser. She said Bush would talk about why Iraq is an important battleground in fighting terrorism abroad to prevent attacks on U.S. soil and highlight previously reported successes in foiling terrorist attacks.
The Bush White House has intermittently declassified and made public sensitive intelligence information to help rebut critics or defend programs or actions against possibly adverse decisions in the Congress or the courts. On a few occasions, the declassified materials were intended as proof that terrorists see Iraq as a critical staging ground for global operations.
Democrats and other critics have accused Bush of selectively declassifying intelligence, including portions of a sensitive National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, to justify the U.S.-led invasion on the ground that
Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction. That assertion proved false.
Townsend, reading from notes, said the declassified intelligence showed that in January 2005, bin Laden tasked al-Zarqawi with organizing the cell. Al-Zarqawi, the former leader of al-Qaida's Iraq operations, was killed there in June 2006 by a U.S. airstrike.
"We know from the intelligence community that al-Zarqawi welcomed the tasking and claimed he already had some good proposals," Townsend said.
She said that in the spring of 2005, bin Laden instructed Hamza Rabia, a senior operative, to brief al-Zarqawi on al-Qaida planning to attack sites outside Iraq, including the United States. She did not disclose where in the United States those attacks were being plotted.
Around the same time, Abu Fajah al-Libi, a senior al-Qaida manager, suggested that bin Laden send Rabia to Iraq to actually help al-Zarqawi plan the external operations, Townsend said. It is unclear whether Rabia went to Iraq, she said.
She said the information was declassified because the intelligence community has tracked all leads from the information.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism
as president, Bush saw that osama wanted to use Iraq as a base of operations. should we have left in 05 or 06 like many have been screaming about? I wont argue there is more of an argument now for them to come home, being that Iraq might be ready to protect themselves more so now then 2 years ago. (but I dont really know for sure, I've never been)
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
first I ever heard of him. why?
her..
mouthpiece
tool
liar
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
very inside
she is a bigger politico/tool than hector
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
i'm sure you feel better about your little rant. i'm tired just from reading it. feel free to comment on something that has to do with this thread sometime.
i was commenting on the thread. i told you that george bush has turned iraq into the place he told us it was before we got there ....that has everything to do with the thread......and it was my very first sentence, so you didnt have to read that far, sorry you got tired before you could get to the first period. the rest of the post was an argument to leave iraq.. also relevant to the thread because the point of the thread was to justify staying there... see how this works? oh, and because you grew too weary to reach the end of the paragraph, the was a question in there about WHEN the evil doers will not follow us home.... being such an fan of all things neo-con, i imagine you woulds be qualified to answer... at what point WONT they follow us home?
when they are defeated.
when WHO is defeated? terrorists? when there are no more terrorists we can leave iraq? "we are fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" right? "if we leave they will follow us home" right? tell me when that is!when will terrorism no longer exist? when will the THREAT of terrorism no longer exist? that IS when we can come home right? that's your plan?
its not that cut and dry buddy boy. as for Iraq now, i'm all for a gradual withdrawal. el queda has been largely defeated in iraq. although from what I have read recently they still seem to be causing many problems. i'm ready to leave now so the sunnis and shittes can figure it out themselves.
in 2005, I believe the president did the right thing based on this intelligence report. but that was over 2 years ago, and osama's boy (el zikawi) has since been defeated
How can you still be defending this administration? I am convinced that you state these asinine posts just to get a rise out of the majority on the board. In the off chance that you really do think that the president is acting in your best interests and is protecting you from the big, bad wolf, I will simply tell you once again that this war has NOTHING to do with terrorism and everything to do with money. It is blatantly obvious that the only goal of this war was ensuring that the oil in Iraq is controlled by American interests. This war actually is somewhat in America's best interest in the short term in that China no longer has access to that oil as Saddam was going to sell the oil to the Chinese and leave America dry. A few thousand American lives mean nothing in the long run when there is billions of dollars involved. The sad thing is that Canada has the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world (controlled by American companies) so Bush did not have to go stir up that hornets nest in Iraq. But then again, Bush is simply too stupid of human being to realize that. Then again, about half of the voting public were dumb enough to vote him in twice, so I guess America sort of got what they asked for.
jlew I understand how complex this situation is. I firmly believe we had no business invading Iraq but we did and for better or worse the problem is now ours. Should we cut and run and let the innocent people suffer or try to fix this giant cluster-fuck. The problem is that no amount of military presense will now root out the jihadist element now in Iraq. From day 1 this administration has failed to see the big picture and it has cost us. They failed to perceive the rift between Shi'ite and Sunni and how it will affect the outcome of this country. They failed to see the role that iraq's neighbors would have in the process and even after we started to take heed we still failed to look at all suspects. While they focus on Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia has been providing aid to Sunni insurgents.
Before I stray to much, military force is not the answer to this problem. It is too late for that option. Know we need to tuck our tails between our legs and crawl to the international community to help us salvage what is left of that country. We need to approach the Arab League, NATO, EU, UN, etc...to help us because we have fucked it up beyond repair. Our military can not remain in Iraq because they are being perceived, by the Iraqi people, as part of the problem. As long as that is the case we will not accomplish a damn thing by staying there.
I know to many here the UN is as bad as any four letter curse word, but the UN can accomplish a lot as long as it has the full support of the international community specially the US.
which was stated in the wolfowitz doctrine in the 90's and pnac's paper in 00:
"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
the military and violence cannot defeat an ideology. especially an ideology that is mostly fueled by said military presence. it is really pretty fucking basic
/\ on point as usual /\
homerun, upper deck, left field bleechers
international community? they wont do shit. not one organization will step foot in that country. but I agree many iraqis want us out, so its time to go.
that would be nice, I just dont see it happening.
swing and a miss. the invasion had nothing to do with terrorism. the following years after the invasion did. el queda moved in, even gave themselves a catchy name. "el queda in Iraq"
american doesnt control Iraqi oil. never has, never will.
so why dont we invade canada? o cuz bush is too stupid to realize canada has the 2nd largest oil field? would you like me to tell you who I think is stupid?
Well the problem with the jihadist is that they have blended in with the Shi'ite militias and Sunni insurgents. So at this point it's almost impossible to tell one from the other. The international community hasn't done a thing simple because it wasn't their problem to begin with, but I believe that they now can see the larger implications of an unstable Iraq. Iran obviously wants a Shi'ite controlled Islamic Republic to mirror their own. Turkey does not want an independent Kurdistan because of the instability it will bring their border. Saudi Arabia does not want to see Shi'Ite controlled government in Iraq because of fear that their Shi'ite minority may turn against the government with support from both Iraq and Iran. As for Syria I have no idea what they want or can gain from Iraq. The international community is aware of this and the people that have the most to loose is the Arab League. We need to approach them on bended knee take responsibility for our actions in Iraq and beg for help, we also need to do this with the UN and EU. We can noi longer accomplish anything in Iraq on our own. Our military is over stretched, Afghanistan is sliding closer and closer to instability, we have not eliminated nor reduced the threat of international terrorism, and further more we have done more to damage our image among the poor Muslims in the Middle East and Southwest Asia when we should have been recahing out to these people to win their hearts and minds. They are the breeding ground for militant Islam. Finally we have not adressed Saudi Arabia. Let's face it Saudi Arabia is the birth place and central hub of radical Islam. They teach it in their state run/financed madrahas. They finance organizations that promote it with the money we spend on oil. They Al Sa'uds turn a blind eye to it in order to save their own necks because the jihadist hate them as much as they hate us. So by ignoring it and financing it they have established a buffer to keep them from being beheaded in the streets of Riyadh.
So all the while we sit in this quagmire in Iraq, militant Islam spreads and grows stronger around us. We need to change our strategy and quick but unfortunetly there are few in Washington who have the courage or the intelligence to do so.
No we don't but oil did play a major role in our decision to invade. We didn't invade for the oil but we did invade because of the oil. Let's face it if their was no oil in the Middle East we wouldn't give a second thought to any of those countries. Their leaders could butcher their own people by the millions and we would not bother sending in our troops to help.
sure, oil played a huge role in the invasion. people are shocked and outraged by this. has anyone taken a second to realize how much we depend on this oil? I hate that fact but its reality.
now more then ever, is time to start withdrawing our combat forces. we need to let iraqis do it themselves.
Yes we depend on it but I don't believe we should be going to war because of it. It's not like we had oil shortages because of Saddam. In fact, if memory serves me right, the last time we had an oil shortage was because of our friends the Saudis not our enemies Iran or Iraq.
FUBAR.
I agree. the future looks bright though. (30-60 years out im guessing) our dependence will hopefully be gone or greatly diminished. iraq, iran, saudi arbia will be useless to us. well then there will be israel problem. lets go back to 1967 borders and lets all hold hands around the world and sing we are the world. were is michael jackson when you need him.
Once we are no longer dependent on oil, probably not in my lifetime, I'm pretty sure we will not be as supportive of Israel as we are now. Israel is like our RA in the dorm known as the Middle East. Once we no longer need the Middle East for oil we no longer need Israel as a strong presense there.
The problem is that your leaders make shit up to justify the war instead of telling the truth. I would almost respect Bush if he had just said "we need to make sure China doesn't come and grab that oil". It would have made sense and it would have been the truth.
actually the problem is the consumption of so much oil and our lack of ability to refine it.
without a doubt, this would make the problem much worse :cool: