Did war compromise al-Qaida hunt?

Did war compromise al-Qaida hunt?

July 29 — In early 2002, the U.S. campaign against al-Qaida — “Operation Enduring Freedom” — was revving high. U.S. commandos readied themselves for lightning strikes in the dusty plains of Afghanistan or the deserts of Yemen; aerial drones buzzed the skies rigged with cameras and missiles, controlled by technicians on the ground; surveillance planes high overhead listened for electronic whispers of Taliban holdouts.

BUT, AS “Operation Enduring Freedom” kept al-Qaida on the run, the White House was already planning for war against Iraq. Sources say that in the spring of 2002, key weapons in the war against terror — such as the commandos, the drones and the high-tech surveillance planes — were rotated out of Afghanistan. Now experts tell NBC there was a clear tradeoff as the United States let up on al-Qaida to pursue regime change in Iraq.

A former national security official in the Bush administration tells NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers the White House was warned that the buildup against Saddam might provide a respite for Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. “There were decisions made,” says Flynt Leverett, a former director at the National Security Council in the Bush White House, “to take key assets, human assets, technical assets, out of theater in Afghanistan in order to position them for the campaign to unseat Saddam.”

Leverett, a former senior CIA analyst, talks with the professorial precision of an academic. “We see today,” he says, “that al-Qaida has been able to reconstitute leadership cells in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region and it would seem in Eastern Iran.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/945588.asp?0cv=CA01

New whistle blower!!! :bounce:

Who cares if we successfully break up Al Qeada or not? After all, who has time to worry about that!

Now stop asking questions, grab your American flag, and get your ass to the two minute hate!

That orwellain comparision was used perfectly. After LOL i'm sad because its true.

Thanks for the article. It is worth bringing up that, among other things, there is an opportunity cost for the invasion of Iraq, and that is the real fight against terrorism (the real terrorists).

And told us clearly in May on Face the Nation


McMANUS: You said you were worried that the war in Iraq would take resources away from the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Did that actually happen? You've been on the Intelligence Committee. Tell us if the war in Iraq did damage the anti-terrorist campaign.

GRAHAM: It did. Beginning 14 months ago, the military stopped calling it the war on terrorism and they call it a manhunt, as we shifted military and intelligence resources out of Afghanistan and Pakistan to get ready for the war in Iraq. For that reason, al Qaeda, which was on the ropes about a year ago, has been able to regenerate itself and carry out that very complex set of terrorist acts that ranged from Yemen to Bali last fall and have every appearance of being capable of launching other terrorist attacks. And we haven't laid a glove on the A-team of international terrorism, which is Hezbollah.

SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, are you saying it was a mistake to go to Iraq? It was a mistake to topple Saddam Hussein, that the world is -- that there's not much change in what's happened now that Saddam Hussein is gone?

GRAHAM: Oh, Saddam Hussein was or is an evil man. But he lives in a neighborhood with a lot of evil people. Seems to me that the judgment required of a leadership of the United States was which of those evils had the greatest capability of hurting and killing Americans? And in my judgment, there's no question that that means the international terrorist groups which have already done it, September the 11th, and before, and which have the capability, including the large number of their operatives who are located inside the United States to launch future terrorist attacks. In my judgment, we should have pursued the war on terrorism to victory before we moved to Iraq.

SCHIEFFER: Do you -- just to try to pin you down a little bit here, do you -- are you saying that toppling Saddam Hussein really made no difference? I guess I'm asking do you think we're safer now or about the same or not as safe as we were before we went into Iraq?

GRAHAM: I think you could make the case that we are less secure...

******


Contribute to Graham For President (Enter "Laura Kinsale" as your BobCat if you want to give me credit toward my pledge to raise 1k for Bob.)



http://grahamchat.whitesandworks.com:80/chat/world/html/login.html

should there be another terra' attack with and its staged by al-Quida, which of the following happens:

U.S flag sales hit a new sales record, country music stars find a new cash song, and the sheep all rally around Bush bleeting for him to protect them.

-or-

The masses realize that Bush is responsible for wasting American lives, money, and resources on a war against Iraq and impeach, replace, or force him to resign.

Hmm...is Canada accepting American immegrants?

Faced with a possible war with England over the seizure of Confederate officials by the U.S. Navy off an English ship he said "One war at a time" and released those officials. The civil war was a far more pressing matter.

Multitasking is even harder for G DUHbya to do. In addition to having trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time the reason he choked on his pretzels was because the football game on TV was distracting him from the task at hand.

I posted a thread the other day trying to see if anyone had any idea of what was happening there. What kind of casualties have we sustained? What are the monetary costs? and on and on.

Our short attention spam theater pResident can't stay on topic long enough to accomplish a damn thing but enrich his friends - meanwhile, his constant fits and starts put our country's citizenry at risk and diminish our worldwide reputation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=97847&mesg_id=97847

Just after I posted this, the thread was locked as a dupe, so I'm reposting here (it's in reply to someone who claimed the Afgan war was justified because the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden):

You seem to be under the common misunderstanding that the US actually wanted the Taliban to turn Osama over. Not so. For instance, in late Sept. 2001, a US official stated that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured."

On Sept. 17 and 18, 2001, Pakistan sent Mahmood Ahmed, the head of their intelligence service, to Afghanistan to supposedly convince the Taliban to turn Osama over. This visit was done at the request of their close ally, the US. But according to Knight Ridders newspapers later, Mahmood did "nothing as the visitors poured praise on Omar and failed to raise the issue" of bin Laden's extradition. Time magazine also later reported that Mahmood in fact urged Omar not to extradite bin Laden, but instead urged him to resist the US. A similar visit later in the month went exactly the same. These were supposedly the main extradition efforts.

The US in fact went to great lengths to make sure Osama escaped Afghanistan alive, and even airlifted out members of his immediate family. See here:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/escapeafghanistan.html

Why would they do all this? You can't have an Orwellian police state and a war on terrorism without an Emmanuel Goldstein figure to hate. Read 1984 if you don't understand that reference.

Recall also the build up to the first Gulf War, where supposedly at the time the US war trying every avenue to achieve a peaceful solution so there wouldn't need to be a war. Information that has come out since then shows that was a crock, and they were trying their best to foil any peaceful solution. They even tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait in the first place, by pretending to give the idea a green light.

on terrorism has been compromised because of Iraq...and if we had waited a month we probably would have gained UN approval and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now...

He also said that the Army is in a state of "controlled panic" because 35,000 personnel are slated to separate and there's no one to take their places....I think he said it was the 3rd Army Div....the one there since Sept that is in a total mess....

.

that notion. It was during a t.v. interview in Afghanistan.

Meyers explained that Coalition forces got plenty of Al Quida intel from war captives.

Not only was equipment diverted, but the very sources of the intel couldn't have been pursued as efficiently with the withdrawl of special forces that spoke the language, could they?