by Mark Silva
President Bush, traveling to Charleston Air Force Base today for a barbecue luncheon with troops and address there, rolled out a forceful new argument that the al Qaeda operating in Iraq today has become an integral part of the al Qaeda terrorist network which attacked the United States.
Bush, who contends that the U.S. is fighting terrorists in Iraq so that Americans don't have to fight them at home, has faced criticism from Democrats and war analysts who maintain that al Qaeda never existed in Iraq until the U.S.-led invasion created a new breeding ground for terrorism.
Excerpts of a National Intelligence Estimate released by the White House early last year described that terrorist breeding ground in Iraq. And excerpts of a NIE released this month spoke of the “persistent and evolving’’ threat which al Qaeda still poses to the U.S. homeland today.
And today, the president made his case for the connection between the two, in the process revealing some recently declassified information.
“Here's the bottom line,’’ the president said in Charleston today. “Al Qaeda in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold- blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaeda's political objectives.
“Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaeda in Iraq is not really al Qaeda and not really a threat to America,’’ he said. “Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he's probably just there to cash a check… ‘’
Rand Beers, who served as national security adviser to Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign and has served both the Bush and Clinton administrations, said today that the administration's own intelligence estimates have pinpointed a remote region of Pakistan as the "safe haven'' for al Qaeda's real eadership.
"The bottom line is that Bush is misleading our troops,'' said Beers, president of the National Security Network. "The masterminds who want to harm this country are in Pakistan while our troops are in Iraq. It doesn't get much simpler than that... His speech today tells us that Bush still won't level with the American people or with the men and women serving in the Armed Forces that they are fighting a civil war, not Osama bin Laden."
This is a longer look at what the president said today:
“Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war,’’ the president said. “The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.
“The key theater in this global war is Iraq,’’ Bush said. “Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda.
“There is a debate in Washington about Iraq, and there's nothing wrong with a healthy debate,’’ Bush said. “There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror.
“They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001,’’ the president said. “They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is… an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden, and that it's not interested in attacking America. That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the third world war is raging in Iraq.
“Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are separate entities,’’ he said. “I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network and why they are dangerous to our country.’’
And this is the case he made:
“I'd like to start with some basic facts. Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. His name was Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan.
“He was not yet a member of al Qaeda, but our intelligence community reports that he had long-standing relations with senior al Qaeda leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri. In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces.
In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaeda, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to follow his orders in jihad. Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq, and he instructed terrorists in Iraq to listen to him and obey him.
“It's hard to argue that al Qaeda in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaeda when the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden. According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaeda in Iraq, quote, 'prestige among potential recruits and financiers.'
“The merger also gave al Qaeda's senior leadership, quote, "a foothold in Iraq" to extend its geographic presence, to plot external operations, and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere. The merger between al Qaeda and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers, and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail.
“Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner, an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaeda senior leadership are deep and long-standing. He's collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaeda's radical ideology.
“After… Abu Ayyub took over al Qaeda's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior adviser to bin Laden who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. Abdul Hadi had never -- Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured and was recently transferred to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay.
“The fact that Osama bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaeda's Iraqi operations.
“According to our intelligence community, many of al Qaeda in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaeda in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaeda in Iraq's top spiritual and legal adviser, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters.
“Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaeda facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and met the September the 11th mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and other al Qaeda leaders.
“A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader named Mashhadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi; in fact, he was the highest-ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us:
“The foreign leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. He says al Qaeda even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi; the purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashhadani revealed that al- Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are the top echelons of al Qaeda in Iraq, they are the leaders, and that foreign leaders made most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis.
“Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaeda terrorists.
“It's true that today most of al Qaeda in Iraq's rank-and- file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi, but to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaeda in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden. They know they're al Qaeda; the Iraqi people know they are al Qaeda; people across the Muslim world know they are al Qaeda; and there's a good reason they are called al Qaeda in Iraq -- they are al Qaeda in Iraq.
“Some also assert that al Qaeda in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaeda's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaeda's global terrorist network actually operates: Al Qaeda and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives and have differing levels of collaboration with al Qaeda senior leadership.
“ In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaeda and take what's called bayat, a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaeda but collaborate closely with al Qaeda leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. Still other cases there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaeda or any other broader terrorist group but maintain contact with al Qaeda leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.
“Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaeda in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaeda terrorist network. The al Qaeda leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements, important disagreements between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shi'a. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaeda senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi base commanders when it comes to internal operations because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.
“Our intelligence community concludes that, quote, "Al Qaeda and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." And they say that al Qaeda senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq, quote, "see al Qaeda in Iraq as part of al Qaeda's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."
“Here's the bottom line. Al Qaeda in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold- blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaeda's political objectives.
“Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaeda in Iraq is not really al Qaeda and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he's probably just there to cash a check…
“Some note that al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq's not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.
“Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence, and America (sic) withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaeda terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women and children in London and Madrid, slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta and elsewhere around the world.
“If we were not fighting these al Qaeda extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere, in Afghanistan or other foreign capitals or on the streets of our own cities. ‘’
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Bush - "Al-Qaeda Like Masked Man In Bank With A Gun"
Yep, and thanks to Prez McFlightsuit's invasion of Iraq there's a whole new generation of "masked" Al-Qaeda guys running around nowdays.
Posted by: John E | July 24, 2007 1:43 PM
“Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaeda in Iraq is not really al Qaeda and not really a threat to America,’’ he said. “Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he's probably just there to cash a check… ‘’
Ummm, no. That has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen.
In fact, Mr. Preznit, evidence indicates that once we leave, the 3 major factions in Iraq will all seek to get rid of Al Quaida since the common enemy (us) would be gone.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | July 24, 2007 1:52 PM
"Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence"
No, all our actions did was remove the lid from the pressure cooker, then our pResident acted all surprised when the stew exploded all over the kitchen ceiling.
Posted by: BC | July 24, 2007 1:54 PM
It's a flat out lie to say al Qaeda is a major player in Iraq. Most reliable estimates put the fundamentalist/jihadist/al Qaeda actors in Iraq at around 3-5% of the total insurgency. The leadership of the group is in Pakistan, anyway. If Chimpy really, really wanted to do something constructive he'd find a way to round those guys up.
Posted by: Cheryl | July 24, 2007 2:05 PM
Of course, it is a bank in which most of the people are carrying guns and wearing masks. If he were being honest, he'd admit we don't know why half the bombings take place. A bunch went off in Kirkuk last week; was that Al Qaeda or the Sunnis trying to dislodge the PUK?
That said, it was a pretty good speech. There obviously some brains still active in the White House. If Bush wasn't spending the brains on justifying all these messes and instead spent them trying to run the government, we wouldn't have all these messes in the first place.
Posted by: PaulG | July 24, 2007 2:08 PM
To complete his analogy, AQ in Iraq is like a masked gunman walking into the bank after someone unlocked the vault, killed the security guard and disbanded the police force in the city.
But more seriously, his statement basically admits Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. They would be fighting us somewhere else if not in Iraq he says. So why do we have to keep troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war in order to fight Al Qaeda?
His arguement boils down to this: While we profess concern for the Iraqi people, the reality is we are willing to sacrifice Iraqi civilian lives in order to create our preferable battlefield for AQ. Iraqi lives are less valuable than American lives, so it is OK to scarifice them in order to fight our war, which they had nothing to do with.
Posted by: Tony | July 24, 2007 2:11 PM
The only reason Chimpy's talking today anyway is to distract us from Gonzales' testimony.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/24/gonzales-contradiction-spying/
Posted by: Cheryl | July 24, 2007 2:14 PM
weiner, if the three factions in Iraq recognize Al Qaeda as an enemy, why would they have to wait until we are gone to expel them? You mentioned evidence to support your premise. What specific facts are you referring to?
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 24, 2007 2:19 PM
Here we go again, the most ignorant people society has to offer, are chirping away. Sorry, Cheryl, but Al Qaeda is more than just 3 percent. In fact, Al Qaeda is coordinating most of the attacking.
The reality is that the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds are tired of being guinea pigs for Al Qaeda terrorists and have been working WITH the U.S. and Iraqi troops in rooting them out.
Let me ask you Loons something: Let's say within the next few months Gen. Patreaus's surge plan is working and showing tangible results. And a year from now the situation in Iraq is much better, what are you folks going to do? You and your Demoncratic party have invested so much in losing, what if we don't lose and aren't losing, then what are you folks going to do?
Posted by: John D | July 24, 2007 2:34 PM
Please someone ask bush...When was the last time the FBI caught someone who took a gun into a bank and robbed it???
Posted by: jerri | July 24, 2007 2:49 PM
Johnny-
That would be a wonderful thing. I truly wish it would happen, but the evidence on the ground weighs heavily against it. Again, there is NO military solution, only a political one. There is no evidence of that coming anytime soon.
What are you and your right wing buddies going to do a year from now, If the surge isn't a success and Iraq is still in chaos? You've invested so much in the surge, are you ever going to be able to admit it failed? If Iraq is failing, what are you going to do?
Posted by: Tony | July 24, 2007 2:55 PM
Herbie H.,
If three factions never saw al-queda in Iraq to begin with why would a man with a late alphabet nickname invade that same country?
Posted by: Doug Zook | July 24, 2007 2:55 PM
Was al Qaeda a major player in Iraq before March 2003?? Is al Qaeda in Iraq because the U.S. continues to occupy Iraq?? What has the Iraqi government done to reduce the influence of al Qaeda in Iraq?? Where is bin Laden these days?? IF al Qaeda is a threat, Mr. Bush is directly responsible for this threat. He should be held accountable. Bush told us all that the leadership of al Qaeda had been decimated and al Qaeda is on the run...running for their lives. Every day we hear someting different from this moron.
Posted by: Doug R. | July 24, 2007 3:02 PM
You and your Democratc Party has invested so much in losing.
Posted by John D July 24, 2007 2:34 PM
Wrong again Little Johnny.
As of 7-24-07:
Democrat's lead Republican's in campaign funding by:
OVER $40 MILLION
See ya at the voting booth Little Johnny!
Posted by: John E | July 24, 2007 3:18 PM
Standard GOP talking points from John D again. How much do they pay you to lie like that? Because if you're doing it for free you're an idiot.
Posted by: Cheryl | July 24, 2007 3:36 PM
..."As of 7-24-07:
Democrat's lead Republican's in campaign funding by:
OVER $40 MILLION"...
...(in keeping in my belief of equal abuse to all parties)...
...yea, tell that to President Howard Dean...
Posted by: The Original BZ | July 24, 2007 3:56 PM
quote from Bush: "Like bin Laden, they are cold- blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaeda's political objectives."
And CheneyBush isn't a cold-blooded killer who is murdering the innocent to achieve his political objectives? What a Hypocrite.
Posted by: Dan | July 24, 2007 3:59 PM
"Sorry, Cheryl, but Al Qaeda is more than just 3 percent. In fact, Al Qaeda is coordinating most of the attacking." Wow, that is some evidence to support your argument John D. Maybe if you just say something long enough it will become true. If you are going to refute her facts, lets have them.
Posted by: drew | July 24, 2007 4:01 PM
Let's say within the next few months Gen. Patreaus's surge plan is working and showing tangible results. And a year from now the situation in Iraq is much better.
Yeah, right. And let's say within the next few months you Bush sheep start showing some level of comprehension. Neither is going to happen. The surge was Bush's and his alone. No one wanted this and Bush was told repeatedly NOT to send more troops into this death trap. But like the stubborn, childish fool that he is, he ignored the Baker-Hamilton study, Congress, and the American voters and did what HE wanted. Everyone in the White House has known for a long time that Iraq is a complete failure. They're only trying to hold on until Bush can sneak out of the back door. The Republicans not only know that they can't win the White House or control of Congress next year, they're banking on it. When Iraq dissolves into complete civil war, the Republicans will blame the newly elected Democratic White House and try to use that to take back the Presidency in 2012, once again proving how out of touch the GOP is with America. It's going to take people a lot longer than 4 years to forget or forgive the disaster that Bush and Cheney have made out of this country and the rest of the world.
Posted by: Mrs. Jesus | July 24, 2007 4:08 PM
JohnD, the surge is not working. Bush just wants to keep the war going so that it's the next president's problem. And when that president has the good sense to pull the troops out, Bush will have his biography ghost written to read that he had the ter'ists in Iraq on the run, but the Defeatocrat cut 'n ran. All Bush cares about is not looking like the complete failure that he is.
Posted by: JohnC | July 24, 2007 4:18 PM
Michael Ware, the Australian journalist reporting from Bahgdad, on CNN the other day said that Al Quada represented at most 3% or less of the violence in Iraq.
Now there is allot violence over there alright, thanks to these brilliant Neocons, who along with their fear mongering Leader-would -be-King Bush are also responsible for blowing 30 billion dollars a month + interest in American working class Tax Dollars + what's been borrowed from China--all tossed down the Halliburton/Black Water rat hole for the last four and a half years, which has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Bin Lade--except the thousands of Iraqis who have lost loved ones since then, and have now become radicalized thanks again to President Numnuts and his faithful obstructionist Republicon Party--most of whom wouldn't admit they were wrong if our very lives depended on it, and our lives probably do!
You expect the American people to continue to believe these clowns? They have been wrong at every turn. Get a clue! If they say Iraq will come unglued, then you can count on the opposite happening in spades.
85% of Iraqis want us the heck out of their country. I say they know what they want and better than anyone else possibly could.
The hand writing is on the wall.
The sooner we bring our troops home, the more of their lives we can save between now and then, the better for everyone involved.
It's not rocket science.
Posted by: Mike George | July 24, 2007 4:23 PM
Tony, Don't be silly. The surge will never be seen as failing by our neo-con pals...it will just need another Friedman Unit.
Posted by: Tom O | July 24, 2007 4:33 PM
"weiner, if the three factions in Iraq recognize Al Qaeda as an enemy, why would they have to wait until we are gone to expel them? You mentioned evidence to support your premise. What specific facts are you referring to?
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 24, 2007 2:19 PM"
Herbie H., hoping not to step on weinerdog's toes -- There are those who hold that the ONLY people that Iraqis hate more than Al Quaeda is us as occupiers ("occupiers" being the operative word, as they don't hate us so much as they hate being occupied). While we're there, they will unite as Muslim against Non-Muslim Invader. Take us out of the picture, and the first of the bloodbaths will be Iraqi nationals slaughtering the Al Quaeda interferers, who they resent like hell for sticking their noses in (and they know good and well who and where they are, btw). Think: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
As I recall, that theory was put forth (probably not for the first time) by an Iranian author guesting on the Daily Show a couple months ago or so. I don't remember more details.
Posted by: Op109 | July 24, 2007 4:48 PM
"quote from Bush: "Like bin Laden, they are cold- blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaeda's political objectives."
And CheneyBush isn't a cold-blooded killer who is murdering the innocent to achieve his political objectives? What a Hypocrite.
Posted by: Dan | July 24, 2007 3:59 PM"
Dan, it's far from my nature to stick up for Bush, but I think this is an unfair analogy.
True, in both cases, people are being killed. But for Al Quaeda, killing innocent people is the main tool in achieving their objectives, and they try to take out as many people as they can, and in as horrifying a manner as they can. Bush's objectives are not furthered by killing innocent people -- in fact it hinders his goals and makes achieving them that much harder. It's a simple matter of following motives.
I'd agree with you that the dead aren't going to see the distinction, but for us killing is an unavoidable consequence of combat (at least it still is for the time being). For Al Quaeda, it's the main show.
Posted by: Op109 | July 24, 2007 5:06 PM
Loony Lefties, I get my information from the generals and troops on the ground. Where do you get yours?
John C., recently several generals on the ground in Iraq have said that headway is being made against Al Qaeda and the insurgents. Again, I'll go with them.
Dan, what innocents are Bush/Cheney killing? Please show proof and not from some left wing blog either. Did Clinton kill innocents while we bombed Bosnia for 46 straight days or how about the dozens of times Clinton bombed Iraq?
We are not bombing Iraq, so who are we killing?
More dribble from the folks who make up wasted space.
Posted by: John D | July 24, 2007 5:17 PM
Johnny D-
What do the Generals and troops on the ground have to say about progress on the Iraqi Oil law? What do they have to say about progress on the power sharing bills? What do they have to say about the Iraqi Parliament taking the month of August off?
Those are the key questions. The Generals aren't the people who can answer them.
Posted by: Tony | July 24, 2007 5:27 PM
John D,
Here is the latest from BBC. It even has graphs for reading impared simpletons like yourself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm
Tell us again that the surge is working. Almost as believable as the Nissan Murano not being an SUV.
Posted by: Bubba | July 24, 2007 5:36 PM
Sorry John, my bad, here it is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6906499.stm
The Murano is still an SUV too.
Posted by: Bubba | July 24, 2007 6:14 PM
Op 109, no problem. Had to cut the grass and the stupid mower had bad gas...(um, I don't like where this is going, so never mind.)
Anyway, I don't recall where I saw that, but it seems like common sense. As much as I loathe Republics, I'd happily join forces with them to get a foreign occupying force out of our country. Why would the Iraqis be any different? The enemy of my enemy and all that.
Posted by: weinerdog43 | July 24, 2007 8:10 PM
Those must be the same guys with the "weapons of mass destruction". Do we really have to put up with another year and a half of the worst President on our nations history??? Can't any of our countries smart-ass lawyers find a way to
impeach him. I bet if the money is right you could.
Posted by: Tim | July 24, 2007 9:01 PM
Where's Osama Bin lately?
Posted by: bill r. | July 25, 2007 8:26 AM
So John D. drives a Nissan Murano, which is an SUV.
You are a lying hypocrite, Mr. D.
Posted by: Doug R. | July 25, 2007 9:01 AM
Now that Mark Silva has provided instant, in-article Democrat rebuttal to what Pres. Bush said about the war, can we expect Mr. Silva to provide instant, in-article Republican rebuttal to everything a Democrat says about the war?
Posted by: Bruce | July 25, 2007 9:27 AM
How many times does this guy have to try and tie Iraq with 9/11?! I didn't buy it then and I don't now. When I heard this turd sandwich was running in 99, the first thing I said was that if he wins we are going to invade Iraq. People thought I was nuts - I say he is nuts.
War is nothing but one barbaric act after another. A war of aggression is even worse. Whatever happens with the surge, we will begin reducing our presence in Iraq within a few years. Now that we are committed, I hope that the surge (and more importantly the political aspect) works - we owe it to the Iraqi's to help fix the mess we created. I would not be surprised if we do not find out the results for at least a decade. If it does not work, it is not the fault of our military. It will be the fault of the US (dem and repub alike) and Iraqi politicians. If it does work, then we all should share in the victory because we are all in it together.
If we left immediately it would be a bigger mess then it is now. However, I don't buy the line that "AQ will come over here" if we leave. That is straight "paranoia is patriotic" talk. They can and have come over here whenever they want and we will be victorious just like when we defeated the Japanese (who were industrialized fanatics on a higher level than these savages). Homeland Security, FBI, TSA etc. can not stop every "would be terr'r'rist" from coming here and attacking. The government can't afford the talent needed to do it. There is no need to fear.
Posted by: The Decider | July 25, 2007 12:23 PM
"Now that Mark Silva has provided instant, in-article Democrat rebuttal to what Pres. Bush said about the war, can we expect Mr. Silva to provide instant, in-article Republican rebuttal to everything a Democrat says about the war?
Posted by: Bruce | July 25, 2007 9:27 AM"
Thought that was YOUR job. With you doing the anti-Democratic spin on all the Tribune news, why would Silva bother duplicating the effort?
BTW -- If we get back the fairness doctrine, I assume you'll be finding reasons still why everything's biased against the poor put-upon Republicans, right?
Posted by: Op109 | July 25, 2007 12:35 PM
Good heavens, people, so yes the Murano is technically considered an SUV, but it's a "crossover SUV" as explained here from edmunds.com:
The Nissan Murano was one of the first midsize crossovers to be introduced in the United States. As with other vehicles in this segment, the Murano combines the driving attributes of a car with the elevated seating position and versatility of a sport-utility vehicle. Also in its favor is a spacious interior, a powerful V6 engine and distinctive styling.
Since its introduction in 2003, the Murano has often ranked as Nissan's best-selling SUV. Particularly when compared with the rugged truck-based SUVs in Nissan's lineup, the Murano's classy, sculptural lines stand out. Rounded edges mask the crossover's substantial size, translating into a surprising amount of cargo and passenger space inside.
With its car-based platform and available on-road-biased all-wheel-drive system, the Nissan Murano is definitely not made for rock-crawling. But on the road, where most SUVs will stay anyway, the Murano is a smooth operator. The character of its strong V6 engine is dulled somewhat by the "gearless" continuously variable transmission, but it is still quite fast, with excellent handling, capable brakes and a smooth ride to round out a performance package that's favorable overall.
The Nissan Murano is still in its first generation. In contrast to some other midsize crossovers, which feature up to three rows of seats, the Murano offers just two for a total seating capacity of five.
And here from the truthaboutcars.com is this:
Californians designed it. Italy’s glass blowing artisans lent it their name. A Franco-Japanese alliance headed by a Brazilian CEO builds it in a Japanese factory. The Murano is a twenty-first century multinational mutt. Introduced in 2002, this strange beast has faithfully served owners in the great melting pot of America’s sprawling suburbs. In dog years, the model’s now 67 years old. And the CUV market has suddenly become more crowded than a backwoods puppy mill. So has Nissan’s crossbreed aged well, or is this old dog ready for the vet’s needle?
The Murano’s funky design caused quite a stir at launch. Ghosn’s goons had decided to break out of the generic Japanese gestalt with some bold moves; there was no mistaking the Murano for, um, anything else. Although it was not the first car-based CUV, it was the first to show sheetmetal that openly flaunted its pavement-only intentions– and how.
Is it an SUV? Technically, yes. Is is the traditional SUV? No. Is it considered to be in the car-SUV hybrid areana? Yes.
You folks are so darn weird. Since you all are so interested in every aspect of my life, what else do you want to know? (That's a facetious question, by the way.)
Posted by: John D | July 25, 2007 12:43 PM
Lol! Thank you for informing me about the on-road-biased all-wheel-drive system of the Murano! I also drive a Nissan.
Posted by: The Decider | July 25, 2007 1:05 PM
John D,
You are aware that the only reason people are commenting on your car is that you chose to advertise the fact that you just purchased a $36,000 car and therefore life was good for you and therefore the economy is great. No one solicited that information, just like no one solicited the absurd concept that you, "LOONY LEFT LOONY LEFT LOONY LEFT" John Dyslin, were a "journalist."
Anyway, spin all you want its clearly what you live to do, but Nissan classifies the Murano as an SUV and I'll continue to take their word on it over yours.
Posted by: Jeez Louise | July 25, 2007 1:24 PM
"Dan, what innocents are Bush/Cheney killing? Please show proof and not from some left wing blog either."
John D, here are the facts: 1) CheneyBush illegally invaded Iraq for political and monetary gain. 2) Innocent people were killed.
Is that clear enough for you?
Posted by: Dan | July 25, 2007 3:53 PM