http://rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_uses_Bin_Laden_quote_as_0324.html "As you probably know, an audiotape ... was released where bin Laden said, and I have to quote bin Laden: 'The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine ... is the Iraqi field.' He urged Palestinians and people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to 'help in support of their mujahideen brothers in Iraq which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.'"
McCain followed that with, "For the first time, I have seen Osama bin Laden and Gen. Petraeus in agreement, and that is, the central battleground in the battle against al-Qaeda is in Iraq today! That's what bin Laden is saying, and that's what Gen. Petraeus is saying, and that's what I'm saying, my friends."
11 Comments
joedirtsays...Always do what Osama wants you to do. Oh, and I'm pretty sure this guy died. How hard is it to monitor all dialysis machines in Pakistan?
By the way go figure.. Sunni insurgent groups.. I thought McCain was saying the Shi'a in Iran were the bad guys. So could it be the Saudis are in fact the ones to worry about?
uhohzombiessays...I'm not your friend, old man!
I hate the way he continually uses that phrase. I can't imagine listening to it for 4 (or more) years.
Farhad2000says...All of a sudden a hardened extremist Sunni terrorist organization called Al Qaedea is allied with the Shi'a government of Iran. Get your facts straight McFail.
Furthermore when is American foreign policy being dictated through the words of some terrorist? Since 2001 Osama Bin Laden has been built up as some phantom boogey man.
The facts are clear on this, if the US wants to capture and nullify Bin Laden the resources are there, they were there during the Tora Bora campaign in Afghanistan. If you disagree, think about military deployment between Afghanistan and Iraq and tell me if it makes any sense that there were more resources dedicated to capturing a failed state of Iraq then going after Public Enemy Number 1 post 9/11? The number of troops needed to capture Bin Laden were not supplied. Why?
Because if Bin Laden is eliminated what fear mongering scapegoat can the government use to push the sheeple of America into accepting whatever stupid foreign policy escapade it deems fit?
This was never about war, its about hijacking a country through encroachments on executive power.
joedirtsays..."the central battleground in the battle against al-Qaeda is in Iraq today!"
Get the fuck out of Iraq and then see if Sunni insurgents are still interested in it being a battleground. Don't stick your f-ing hand inside a beehive and then say 'I have to keep my hand still until the bees calm down'. There were no insurgents blowing crap up in Iraq until Mr. Decider got involved.
dystopianfuturetodaysays...Osama has been dead for years.
bcglorfsays..."There were no insurgents blowing crap up in Iraq until Mr. Decider got involved."
Nope, just a humanitarian nightmare of decaying infrastructure, daily executions to enforce loyalty and chemical weapons being used against Iran and the Kurds. Shame on the US for coming in and turning that all to pot.
"Sunni insurgent groups.. I thought McCain was saying the Shi'a in Iran were the bad guys."
It's neither the Sunni nor the Shi'a that are the problem, but the militant extremists from both. To paraphrase Hitchens, "The problem that many are making is looking at this as a war with Islam rather than a war within Islam".
Now I'm happy to criticize Bush as much as the next guy, but Iraq is not as simplistic as the above little blurbs might make out. The US obligation to Iraq started back in the 60's when they helped get Saddam into power. Selling him chemical weapons deepened that obligation. Going in and removing Saddam was obviously going to be a mess and shame on the Bush administration for saying otherwise. It is, however, just as dishonest to suggest that Iraq wasn't already a mess. The only change to sectarian violence that Saddam's presence made was that he ensured it remained one sided. Like using poison gas on the Kurds. But, if you'd like to call those the good old days, then why let reality get in the way?
dgandhisays...I like how he assumes that the best battle ground to assist Palestine, and presumably harm the US is, by default, the best battle ground to harm Al Qaida. Would it not make more sense to assume that Al Qaida's battleground of choice would be that least likely to cause them harm? Has he not read art of war? Does he assume that Al Qaida's leadership is stupid?
This guy is running on military experience?
Baerasays...All politicians deceive us in one way or another... -But this man is dangerous..
Farhad2000says...bcglorf, there are better ways of influencing change then military incursion in the shape of troops, tanks and bombs. Whatever you can say doesn't absolve the current administration of undertaking cowboy misadventures in Iraq.
The incursion could have been better planned and carried out, but it wasn't because they were inept and didn't consider the long term implications of invading a nation, the same way the past administrations didn't consider how their strategy in Afghanistan would blow back into creating extremist Islamic terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.
There is so little thought put into this whole affair. But then again who cares. No one. The public is asleep on the War issue, there was more attention given to the Battle of Mogadishu in 1994.
eric3579says...*dead
siftbotsays...This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.