Thursday, May 24, 2007

Bush's Iraq?

Is anyone else confused after President Bush's press conference? He said we needed to stay in Iraq to battle al Qaeda and outlined the threat should America leave.

As to al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda is going to fight us wherever we are....And so we're fighting them in Iraq, we're fighting them in Afghanistan, we've helped the Philippines -- Philippine government fight them. We're fighting them.

Failure in Iraq will cause generations to suffer, in my judgment. Al Qaeda will be emboldened. They will say, yes, once again, we've driven the great soft America out of a part of the region. It will cause them to be able to recruit more. It will give them safe haven. They are a direct threat to the United States.

It's better to fight them there than here. And this concept about, well, maybe let's just kind of just leave them alone and maybe they'll be all right is naive. These people attacked us before we were in Iraq. They viciously attacked us before we were in Iraq, and they've been attacking ever since.

Leaving aside the questions of accuracy of the above statements, the following comment by George Bush confused me.

And my point was, was that Osama bin Laden was establishing an external cell there, or trying to, and he's been unable to do it. Precisely my point. That's why we've got to stay engaged. Had he been able to establish an internal cell that had safe haven, we would be a lot more in danger today than we are. His organization is a risk. We will continue to pursue as hard as we possibly can. We will do everything we can to bring him and others to justice.

So the U.S. remains in Iraq to fight al Qaeda which never really got established? Didn't Osama attack us twice? Doesn't he want to attack us again? So which al Qaeda are we fighting in Iraq? Don't they need money and expertise to follow us home? Without a link to bin Laden, who is providing the needed resources? Don't tell me the Saudis are bankrolling their black sheep once again...

No comments: