The testimony, in an annual assessment of the threats facing the United States, was the latest indication that Al Qaeda appears to have significantly rebuilt a network battered by the American invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
It follows a National Intelligence Estimate last summer that described a resurgent Al Qaeda, and could add fuel to criticisms from Democratic lawmakers and presidential candidates that the White House focus on Iraq since 2002 has diverted attention and resources from the battle against the Qaeda organization’s core.
Contrast this to what Bush stated in his State of the Union address:
Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies.
And a few moments later:
Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.
So now that Bush has focused 150,000 US troops and hundreds of billions of dollars on defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq (Where they, by the way, did not exist before Bush's war / occupation,) the terrorist organization is, according to McConnell:
gaining in strength from its refuge in Pakistan and is steadily improving its ability to recruit, train and position operatives capable of carrying out attacks inside the United States.
So while Bush is desperately trying to keep Iraq from completely disintegrating, Al Qaeda has set up shop down the street, in a country that has nuclear weapons. The sad truth is that Bush has no idea how to wage a "war on terror." Worse is the fact that none of the incompetent people he has surrounded himself with seem to have a clue, either.
6 comments:
Maybe if the chickenhawk wasn't a chickenhawk he would understand things better.
A distinct possibility. (Though we are talking about Bush, so I have my doubts.)
can you stipulate that we haven't had an attack since 9/11? And you know that if we had one it would be you know whos fault. the opposite should be just as true.....take the blame take the praise:) N
Hey, Nikki. I can stipulate that we haven't had any attacks in the US since 9/11. However, as a trade-off I would ask that you stipulate that at best, the Bush administration is criminally negligent for not preventing the attacks on 9/11.
Also, my point about Bush not knowing how to wage a "war on terror" is bolstered by the fact that since the start of the Iraq war (which George states is the central battleground in his War On Terra,) fatal terror attacks worldwide have increased significantly.
So if George ever does something worthy of praise (like actually reducing terrorism) I'll praise him. But I'm not gonna hold my breath.
Thanks for the comment!
No I will not stipulate that because I do not believe it....I would say that the previous administration was more responsible....just ask Sandy Berger.....oops he stuffed the documents down his pants and shredded them and is now getting his hand slapped because of it.....Clinton is the one who had the chance to take out bin laden and did not.....is he or pres bush responsible, no. The terrorists are. and you are right Bush is not qualified to wage a war on terror but our military is and I think they are making mistakes that the bush administration is takeing the brunt for....and I think they a doing a fine job of keeping us safe.......:)Nikki
what is up with this hoppin blog.......politics in the air!!!??? yep...keep up the great posts and thanks for getting my girdle in knot!!! :)N
Post a Comment