Bush declassifies al-Qaida intelligence

jlew24asu

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)

B nice

frances townsend = cunt

jlew24asu

B nice wrote:

frances townsend = cunt

first I ever heard of him. why?

B nice

jlew24asu wrote:

first I ever heard of him. why?

her..
mouthpiece
tool
liar

B nice

she is being floated as a replacement for the chimps shrimp (mexican)
very inside
she is a bigger politico/tool than hector

robbie

george bush has turned iraq INTO a terrorist nation. he has made iraq what he TOLD us it was before we went there......I cannot believe that people still support him, or worse yet, use the logic that "he got us in this mess, let him get us out"... look, everything he touches turns to shit. how we can continue to trust anything he says or does is beyond me. why should we give him a chance to make it work when everything we have given him a chance on so far has been a nightmare? if your stockbroker lost all your money in bad investments would you continue to trust them after over 4 years of disasterous decisions? would you leave a pitcher on the mound if they had an ERA of 56.9 and intentionally walked the players with the bases loaded... in every game...in every inning? would to trust a quarterback who runs the wrong way with the football for a safety every snap? if a teacher at school was continuously molesting your childeren, how long would you continue to put your faith in that person to give it one more try... or figure "they got us into this mess, they can get us out". at some point we have to come to the realization that this man is a tragic failure. some of you people will continue to support this mess regardless of how perverse it gets. how do we EVER leave iraq without it being considered a surrender? and another question.. the absurd argument that if we set a timeline to leave iraq, the evildoers will simply liw back and wait for us to leave, then all hell will break loose.... that is the argument right???? i say GOOD. isnt that what we want? isnt that what we have gambles the lives of our soldiers for??? to give the government "breathing room"? to give a period of calm so the government can function, the troops can be trained, and they can stand up for, govern and maintain themselves? isnt that the new vision of "victory" well, i say while the evil doers are laying low and waiting for a FUCKING YEAR.... the government can function, the troops can be trained, and iraq can become independent. how long does it take to train a soldier anyways? i know an american 18 year old straight out of high school can enlist and be on the battlefield within a year, why cant an iraqi? I bet iraq could benefit greatly during this year of calm while they wait for us to "surrender" this Follow us Home bullshit is insane! when will the time come when they dont want to follow us home? do we just stay forever so they never follow us home, or will it be ok for them to follow us home in 2 years? or 4? 0r 6? 10? i guess we can leave iraq when there are no more terrorists to follow us home. as soon as there is never a threat of terrorism we can have all our rights back and our soldiers can come home.... waiting...watching the clock..............

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

george bush has turned iraq INTO a terrorist nation. he has made iraq what he TOLD us it was before we went there......I cannot believe that people still support him, or worse yet, use the logic that "he got us in this mess, let him get us out"... look, everything he touches turns to shit. how we can continue to trust anything he says or does is beyond me. why should we give him a chance to make it work when everything we have given him a chance on so far has been a nightmare? if your stockbroker lost all your money in bad investments would you continue to trust them after over 4 years of disasterous decisions? would you leave a pitcher on the mound if they had an ERA of 56.9 and intentionally walked the players with the bases loaded... in every game...in every inning? would to trust a quarterback who runs the wrong way with the football for a safety every snap? if a teacher at school was continuously molesting your childeren, how long would you continue to put your faith in that person to give it one more try... or figure "they got us into this mess, they can get us out". at some point we have to come to the realization that this man is a tragic failure. some of you people will continue to support this mess regardless of how perverse it gets. how do we EVER leave iraq without it being considered a surrender? and another question.. the absurd argument that if we set a timeline to leave iraq, the evildoers will simply liw back and wait for us to leave, then all hell will break loose.... that is the argument right???? i say GOOD. isnt that what we want? isnt that what we have gambles the lives of our soldiers for??? to give the government "breathing room"? to give a period of calm so the government can function, the troops can be trained, and they can stand up for, govern and maintain themselves? isnt that the new vision of "victory" well, i say while the evil doers are laying low and waiting for a FUCKING YEAR.... the government can function, the troops can be trained, and iraq can become independent. how long does it take to train a soldier anyways? i know an american 18 year old straight out of high school can enlist and be on the battlefield within a year, why cant an iraqi? I bet iraq could benefit greatly during this year of calm while they wait for us to "surrender" this Follow us Home bullshit is insane! when will the time come when they dont want to follow us home? do we just stay forever so they never follow us home, or will it be ok for them to follow us home in 2 years? or 4? 0r 6? 10? i guess we can leave iraq when there are no more terrorists to follow us home. as soon as there is never a threat of terrorism we can have all our rights back and our soldiers can come home.... waiting...watching the clock..............

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.

robbie

jlew24asu wrote:

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?

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

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

but whats your point? sure Iraq became an el queda hangout after we invaded. ok now what? we should leave?

robbie wrote:

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.

robbie

jlew24asu wrote:

but whats your point? sure Iraq became an el queda hangout after we invaded. ok now what? we should leave?

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?

jlew24asu

robbie wrote:

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

Songburst

jlew24asu wrote:

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.

keeponrockin

Is this the same intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMDs?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

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)

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.

El_Kabong

Songburst wrote:

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.

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."

my2hands

jlew24asu wrote:

when they are defeated.

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

my2hands

El_Kabong wrote:

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."

/\ on point as usual /\

my2hands

keeponrockin wrote:

Is this the same intelligence that claimed Iraq had WMDs?

homerun, upper deck, left field bleechers

jlew24asu

mammasan wrote:

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.

I agree with all this. and i'm more then ready to let the sunnis and shiites figure it out themselves. and I think Iraq is getting coser to being ready to defending themselves from the jihadist element.

mammasan wrote:

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.

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.

mammasan wrote:

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.

that would be nice, I just dont see it happening.

jlew24asu

Songburst wrote:

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.

someone has to break up the circle jerk. this place puts me to sleep half the time

Songburst wrote:

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.

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"

Songburst wrote:

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.

american doesnt control Iraqi oil. never has, never will.

Songburst wrote:

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.

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?

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

I agree with all this. and i'm more then ready to let the sunnis and shiites figure it out themselves. and I think Iraq is getting coser to being ready to defending themselves from the jihadist element.

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.

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.