Al Qaida Leader Caught in Iraq

[red states rule]

Libs have to deal with the fact that Al Qaeda is the real problem in Iraq


Pentagon: al-Qaida Operative Captured

Apr 27 11:24 AM US/Eastern
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon announced Friday the capture of one of al-Qaida's most senior and most experienced operatives, an Iraqi who was trying to return to his native country when he was captured.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the captive is Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. He was received by the Pentagon this week from the CIA, Whitman said, but the spokesman would not say where or when al-Iraqi was captured or by whom.

The Pentagon described Al-Iraqi as an associate of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and as someone who may have been targeting Westerners outside of Iraq.

The Pentagon took custody of al-Iraqi at Guantanamo Bay, the detention center for terror suspects, Whitman said. He is the 15th so-called high-value detainee to be taken to Guantanamo Bay after being held by the CIA in secret prisons abroad. The other 14 were sent to Guantanamo Bay last September and have since undergone military hearings there to affirm their status as enemy combatants eligible for military trials.

Whitman said al-Iraqi was believed responsible for plotting cross- border attacks from Pakistan on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and that he led an effort to assassinate Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, as well as unspecified officials of the United Nations.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=

[Krome]

Havent they caught hundreds of the highest Al Quida leaders in Iraq and even got confessions from them for killing Kennedy and faking the moon landings?

[red states rule]

Havent they caught hundreds of the highest Al Quida leaders in Iraq and even got confessions from them for killing Kennedy and faking the moon landings?


Any good news from Iraq is bad news for the libs

[Krome]

Any good news from Iraq is bad news for the libs

Alot of news coming from Iraq is plain lies.

The truth is that the country is in a civil war due to Bush invading.

[red states rule]

Alot of news coming from Iraq is plain lies.

The truth is that the country is in a civil war due to Bush invading.


The people is Iarq do not think there is a civil war

[Krome]

The people is Iarq do not think there is a civil war

They actually do. Most are pretty scared to leave their houses.

[red states rule]

Sorry to bust your bubble


The Poll You’ll Never Hear About: Only 27% of Iraqis Believe it’s a Civil War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 00:34.
There were two Iraq polls released on Sunday. One is guaranteed to be headline news. The other will likely be totally ignored.

In fact, one of the polls was already referenced by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” as well as reported by USA Today and CNN.

Know what the difference is between these surveys, both of which rather compelling as they asked questions of Iraqi citizens? Well, one painted a rather dire picture of conditions in the embattled country, while the other found a very optimistic people who don’t believe their nation is in a civil war.

As the American media will likely focus all of its attention on the more pessimistic survey, here is the contrary view nobody other than Fox News is likely to cover as reported by the Sunday Times (emphasis added throughout):

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Is it becoming clear why you are unlikely to hear anything about this poll? Yet, that was only the beginning of the startling findings:

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.

[…]

49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

And, there was even more good news:

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

[…]

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

Rather unfortunate that Americans will likely hear very little about this survey, wouldn’t you agree?

What a disgrace.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11497

[Krome]

If it is so great then why are hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead and more dying every single day?

Sectarian killings are up to a level which must be consistant with what is classed as a civil war http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/YAT873865.htm

[red states rule]

If it is so great then why are hundreds of thousands of innocent people dead and more dying every single day?

Sectarian killings are up to a level which must be consistant with what is classed as a civil war http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/YAT873865.htm


Terrorists are doing that - not a civil war

[Krome]

Terrorists are doing that - not a civil war

You really should read WInston Churchills diaries on how Iraq was created. The terrorists werent doing these bombing in Iraq before the invasion so why now?

[red states rule]

You really should read WInston Churchills diaries on how Iraq was created. The terrorists werent doing these bombing in Iraq before the invasion so why now?


True. Terrorists were running the government and killing anyone (and their families) they wanted

[Bill]

Making the deal with the Bathists to hunt Al Qaeda is one of the smarter things that the military has done.

That's how you fight guerillas - you pay their natural enemies within the society to attack them within the structure of the society.

I hope they promote whoever came up with that plan. If it was Petraeus, good for him!

[red states rule]

Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaida. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaida views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.

Al-Qaida's strategy for victory in Iraq is clear. It is trying to kill as many innocent people as possible in the hope of reigniting Shiite sectarian violence and terrorizing the Sunnis into submission.

In other words, just as Petraeus and his troops are working to empower and unite Iraqi moderates by establishing basic security, al-Qaida is trying to divide and conquer with spectacular acts of butchery.

That is why the suggestion that we can fight al-Qaida but stay out of Iraq's "civil war" is specious, since the very crux of al-Qaida's strategy in Iraq has been to try to provoke civil war.

The wave of suicide bombings in Iraq is also aimed at us here in the United States - to obscure the recent gains we have made and to convince the American public that our efforts in Iraq are futile and that we should retreat.

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaida hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

Even as the American political center falters, the Iraqi political center is holding. In the aftermath of the attacks, there were no large-scale reprisals by Shiite militias - as undoubtedly would have occurred last year. Despite the violence, Iraq's leadership continues to make slow but visible progress toward compromise and reconciliation.

But if tomorrow Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve the "political solution" we all hope for, the threat of al-Qaida in Iraq would not vanish


http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarylieberman0429.artapr29,0,6262977.story?c oll=hc-headlines-commentary

[Bill]

It's a shame to dirty perfectly good discussion of tactics and strategy with political kant.

[red states rule]

It's a shame to dirty perfectly good discussion of tactics and strategy with political kant.



Sorry if I confused the issue with facts

[Bill]

It's called an "Editorial Opinion" for a reason.

---

It's an interesting fact that Petraeus (or more likley some Colonel) recently started a new program, in which the Bathists have been promised that they will not be pursued by US forces if they stop attacking shias and hunt Al Qaeda. I gather there are financial rewards too.

Which is brilliant. A lesson right out of classic couter-guerilla doctrine.

Shame they didn't start this kind of thing a lot earlier. We might have won already.

[red states rule]

Was that the briefing Pelosi and Reid skipped?

Nice to know they are willing to listen to what is going on as they push for their surrender bill

[Bill]

Pelosi and Reid are politicians, which means they are doing what their constituents have tasked them to do.

The polls show that the democratic electorate supports what they are doing.

They don't care about red state opinions, because they don't represent red state republicans.

[red states rule]

You might want to check those polls again

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).


A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).


So Pelosi and Reid can tell the rest of the country to go to hell?

I hope they do - it will make 08 much easier

[Bill]

I hope they do - it will make 08 much easier

That's what it's all about.

[red states rule]

The way Dems are going it will be a Republican win like 04

[Bill]

We'll see.

[red states rule]

Dems must have seen the recent polls - that would explain why they are about to cave on their surrender bill

[Bill]

What is this "caving" you speak of?

Surely even in the red states they have the capacity to understand this first emergency budget's purpose?

[red states rule]

Libs are now looking for Republicans to help draft a funding bill that will not be vetoed

So there goes the surrender date

[Bill]

Which establishes that Iraq is the Republican's War.

Now all the republicans have to do is win.

[red states rule]

Which establishes that Iraq is the Republican's War.

Now all the republicans have to do is win.



As I said, so much for the support libs show the troops

I am sure the Dems caving will play well with their base

[Bill]

All you have to do is win your war.

It's the dems job to worry about their constituents.

Attack and blame and frame all you want.

[red states rule]

Since when is telling the truth attacking?

Oh - only to liberals is that attacking

[Bill]

Look on the Red Face and despair.

It knows not what it does.

[stefan segal]

Red...are you some kind of cartoon?

I've been reading your nonsense and I can't believe you are for real...that you don't have some alterior motive...like baiting dems, not for the purpose of debate, but to stifle debate by involving everyone in your nonsense.

Why don't you attempt to upgrade your act...actually come up with with a debatable topic...like the pros and cons of impeachment for butch and cheney.

Like on the one hand, they are criminals, but on the other, the process of impeachment would cripple government, and possibly just riding herd on the administration while unraveling the extra-Constitutional powers they've siezed and putting every repug ganster in jail, is the better course...what do you think red...or do you think at all?

Stefan

[red states rule]

Red...are you some kind of cartoon?

I've been reading your nonsense and I can't believe you are for real...that you don't have some alterior motive...like baiting dems, not for the purpose of debate, but to stifle debate by involving everyone in your nonsense.

Why don't you attempt to upgrade your act...actually come up with with a debatable topic...like the pros and cons of impeachment for butch and cheney.

Like on the one hand, they are criminals, but on the other, the process of impeachment would cripple government, and possibly just riding herd on the administration while unraveling the extra-Constitutional powers they've siezed and putting every repug ganster in jail, is the better course...what do you think red...or do you think at all?

Stefan



I hope libs start to talk impeachment

They are doing a great job of screwing things up - I hope they add to it with impeachment

[Linkster]

The dems will never impeach - some fringe groups might push it but Pelosi is just like her daddy - she bends to whoever is in power

As far as Al Qaeda - it is a made up group that the CIA created back 30 years ago as an insurgency to help the US get an inroad into the Iran/Russian/Iraq "skirmish" - go read about Bin Laden and his work with the CIA back then when the US paid for his help

The only reason the US comes out with these little news blurbs about a leader being caught is to bolster support in the US - but most intelligent people know better - especially us old Viet Nam era people that saw the same thing throughout that war

Now - I have a challenge for Red State - if youre real?
1. Explain why Cheney and Rumsfeld gave Saddam the chemical weapons to use against his own people (of course I know they werent really his own people but thats the talking point I always hear)
2. Explain why the US gave Iran the nuclear technology - and arranged for the French to sell Uranium to Iran
3. Explain why the US put Saddam in power when Iraq had a free democracy for decades before the military took over with the US's help

[Linkster]

A little added note - wonder why this is making the news all of a sudden when this "leader" was actually caught months ago - and was just transferred from the CIA to the pentagon recently? This same person was announced captured 3 months ago trying to cross from Afghanistan to Iraq

[Betty Blowtorch]

A little added note - wonder why this is making the news
all of a sudden when this "leader" was actually caught
months ago - and was just transferred from the CIA to
the pentagon recently? This same person was announced
captured 3 months ago trying to cross from Afghanistan
to Iraq
When there's so little good news lately for the Repugs,
they've gotta dig up every little tidbit they can, even
if it means digging up old news and making it look like
it's brand new.

Typical Repug media manipulation: http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/9972/eyeslookingaroundzq4.gif
Hey folks!! Look, look!!
We caught another al-Qaeda bad guy!!

(Oh wait, it's just the same guy we captured before.)