Bush warns of Iraqi caliphate

#1
By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden's ultimate goal.

"We know what the terrorists intend to do because they've told us -- and we need to take their words seriously," Bush said in a speech liberally laced with quotes from bin Laden, architect of the September 11 attacks five years ago which killed around 3,000 people.

As he sought to bolster support ahead of November elections, Bush also released a White House national strategy for combating terrorism that said Americans are safer five years after the attacks but "we are not yet safe."


Delaware Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said release of the new report showed that even the White House now acknowledged its previous strategy had failed.

"The president has squandered the opportunity to unite the country and the world, instead he has divided both," he said
http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...KOC_0_US-BUSH.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-R2-Today-3
 
#2
Ah so THAT is why Iraq was invaded.

Nothing to do with WMD, Dastardly dictators, bring freedom and democracy, liberation of women or any of the 101 other reasons trotted out of the past few years.

It was always about stopping Al'Q from starting up their own empire.

Well of course it is obvious now he points it out.





I wonder what next months "reason" will be? :?
 
#3
Who briefs Bush? Isn't Iraq a Shi'ia dominated muslim country? My point being that Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organisation, the same one that has been busy killing scores of Shi'ia muslims in a pretty successful attempt to bring about a civil war.

That being the case, how does Pres Bush expect Al Qaeda to take over Iraq? Or am I missing some hugely clever, though obvious point?

edited for stupid omissions!
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#4
Funny old thing - I caught Gerry Adams spoutin' away on the radio this am - before the inevitable snarl and hitting OFF - and remembered Thatch's rather wishful dictum about denying loonies the oxygen of publicity.......Once upon a time,in a galaxy far away, it was worth carefully analysing what the Leader of the Free WorldTM had to say on any issue - and generally ( bar Tricky Dicky) the veracity was rarely in doubt .......not sure I want to even be aware of the latest semi articulate mumbling from the shaven anthropoid.....if he told me the sky was blue I'd take a shufti.... :x

Lee Shaver
 
#5
Looks like the Kremlin has a differing opinion from George W:

"Kremlin envoy says Iraq turning into "terrorist corporation".
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060906/53579200.html

Article starts:

"A high-ranking representative of the Kremlin issued a chilling warning Wednesday saying that Iraq was gradually becoming a "terrorist corporation" producing new generations of terrorists.........."

Other comment on the region available at: http://www.tt-iraq.com
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#6
In 2005 Reg Keys, the father of one of the 6 RMPs killed at Al Majar,Iraq in June 2003, stood unsuccesfully against Tony Blair in his Sedgefield constituency. The attached is taken from his website:

The proof of Blair's lies
Saturday, 16 April 2005

Detail
September 2002
"We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority."Tony Blair, Foreword to the Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier,

23 September 2003
"There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all."
John Scarlett in evidence to the Hutton inquiry

4 February 2004
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): The Prime Minister says that all the intelligence about the 45 minutes was made available. As he will be well aware, it has subsequently emerged that this related to battlefield weapons or small-calibre weaponry. In the eyes of many, if that information had been available, those weapons might not have been described as weapons of mass destruction threatening the region and the stability of the world. When did the Prime Minister know that information? In particular, did he know it when the House divided on 18 March?

The Prime Minister: No. I have already indicated exactly when this came to my attention. It was not before the debate on 18 March last year.

Comment
Both of the Prime Minister's above statements cannot be true.

Either:

he was 'briefed in detail' on the intelligence for the September dossier, in which case, he must have included the claim regarding the 45-minutes knowing that it only related to 'battlefield munitions' and not long-range weapons of mass destruction;

Or:

he was only told the true nature of the 45-minute claim after the 18 March 2003, in which case he clearly was not briefed on the 'detail' for the September dossier. John Scarlett's statement clearly supports this version.

We therefore have to conclude that Blair lied in the foreword to the sexed-up September dossier when he said he had been 'briefed in detail' on the intelligence, in order to scare people into supporting an unjustifiable and illegal war.
by Annie Machon

- ©Reg Keys, 2005 -
Mr Blair: A pretty straight sort of guy......

Le Chevre
 
#8
Goatman said:
In 2005 Reg Keys, the father of one of the 6 RMPs killed at Al Majar,Iraq in June 2003, stood unsuccesfully against Tony Blair in his Sedgefield constituency. The attached is taken from his website:

The proof of Blair's lies
Saturday, 16 April 2005

Detail
September 2002
"We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority."Tony Blair, Foreword to the Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction dossier,

23 September 2003
"There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all."
John Scarlett in evidence to the Hutton inquiry

4 February 2004
Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): The Prime Minister says that all the intelligence about the 45 minutes was made available. As he will be well aware, it has subsequently emerged that this related to battlefield weapons or small-calibre weaponry. In the eyes of many, if that information had been available, those weapons might not have been described as weapons of mass destruction threatening the region and the stability of the world. When did the Prime Minister know that information? In particular, did he know it when the House divided on 18 March?

The Prime Minister: No. I have already indicated exactly when this came to my attention. It was not before the debate on 18 March last year.

Comment
Both of the Prime Minister's above statements cannot be true.

Either:

he was 'briefed in detail' on the intelligence for the September dossier, in which case, he must have included the claim regarding the 45-minutes knowing that it only related to 'battlefield munitions' and not long-range weapons of mass destruction;

Or:

he was only told the true nature of the 45-minute claim after the 18 March 2003, in which case he clearly was not briefed on the 'detail' for the September dossier. John Scarlett's statement clearly supports this version.

We therefore have to conclude that Blair lied in the foreword to the sexed-up September dossier when he said he had been 'briefed in detail' on the intelligence, in order to scare people into supporting an unjustifiable and illegal war.
by Annie Machon

- ©Reg Keys, 2005 -
Mr Blair: A pretty straight sort of guy......

Le Chevre
We all know the answer, he is either incomptent or a liar - either way, he is not fit to be in office and deserves to be held account for his actions.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top