Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) warned, "While we were bogged down in Iraq, all focused on Iraq as the be all and end all of our American foreign policy, we are losing the battle to al Qaeda. … We’ve spent $2 million in Somalia in the last year while we’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq."
In Afghanistan, the home base of al Qaeda prior to 9/11, attacks have surged 200 percent last month alone. A U.S. military intelligence officer said that since the peace deal went into effect Sept. 5 the number of attacks in the border area has grown by 300 percent.
2007-02-07 18:18:51 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Russ Feingold should be running for President. He is a outstanding senator and he is a budget hawk. He is a very bright man that should take a look at running for the presidency.
He defiantly gets it...very down to earth, We as American voters need to pay more attention to this man.
2007-02-07 18:23:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
the country can in hardship-free words leave Iraq at the same time as a authorities pleasant to Saudi Arabia, OPEC, and American oil organizations is in position. This must be a Sunni (like al-Qaeda) gov't, not a specialist-Iranian Shiite gov't. the country ought to invoke a Sunni coup, before the pro-massive oil, professional-Saudi Bush administration leaves place of work via any skill mandatory. it really is the in hardship-free words way those organizations can get their funds's well worth from the Bush administration. If this does not hapen the completed Bush conflict grow to be for not something. it ought to intend the proper of Saudi(own Bush friends and major contributors) administration of the worls oil suuply and the proper of record earnings for Exxon($3.50+ gas).
2016-12-03 21:32:30 · answer #2 · answered by hertling 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 or 2004, and I generally have not supported the conduct of the Iraqi War, but I think al-qaeda has been hurt and weakened. Two-thirds of their known leadership have either been killed or in prisons around the world. Bin Laden's links to the outside has been severly limited. He can't use the internet, cellphones, fax machines, teletype. The only means of communications he has had is through Al-jazerra, the Islamic media, via released videotapes. Even Omar Muhammad in Afghanistan, leader of the Taliban, has said that he hasn't seen or heard from Bin Laden since 2002. Since the top operatives have had their communications limited, the terrorist network now relies on local cells to conduct attacks. Somalia is not our fight. They have a UN mandated interim government supported by Ethiopia. Somalia is primarily an Islamic nation. Again, we can't involve ourselves in every civil war or internal skirmish around the world. But, as far as al qaeda they have definitely been weakened.
2007-02-07 18:39:21 · answer #3 · answered by gone 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Those percentages make good headline grabbers but are meaningless in the context you're placing them in, not to mention that you're lumping al Qaeda and the Taliban together. Border skirmishes with poorly trained Taliban recruits are a local problem and we do want to support the Afghan government, but that has little direct bearing on the goals we have in terms of al Qaeda. It's primarily a support/logistic structure, and we are trying to make it difficult for them to finance major operations like the 9/11 attack. If they're going back into the mode they were in when it was the Soviets in Afghanistan, I think that's a mistake for them and good for us. They won't, after all, have our support this time.
2007-02-07 19:54:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes. Bush took his eye off his job and went for someone who didn't have anything to do with 9/11. Not only that, but he and his cabinet KNOWINGLY lied to America and to congress about the bad intel.
IMO, we need to leave Iraq, let the UN deal with the CIVIL WAR, and then refocus what needs to be done with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the rest of the world. Find out what happened to OBL too, and bring him to justice!
2007-02-07 18:24:31 · answer #5 · answered by hera 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Grow stronger, hell we never went after them in the first place, choosing the oil pipeline and the poppy fields instead. Osama didn't even get his hair mussed by Bush. At least Clinton fired a cruise missile at him and missed, but his did something. One might get the impression Bush is an old family friend of bin Laden, which of course he is.
2007-02-07 19:15:59 · answer #6 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No. George has lived down to my expectations. He's "kicked the beehive" that is Iraq, and now we're all getting "stung". Two more years- & the clown will be gone. Many more will die in the interim, and it will take many years to clean up the mess he'll leave behind. G. Bush CAN'T win the war on terrorism...-Osama Bin Laden's already won it. :(
2007-02-07 18:30:42 · answer #7 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Among other things? Absolutely.
Al Qaeda are our enemies, not the Iraqis.
2007-02-07 18:21:22 · answer #8 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Nope, because you fail to grasp the situation. Nothing that anyone can say will change your mind from the made up stats you are spouting so... no I'm not upset, Al Qaeda would be much stronger with a liberal Democrat in the White House.
2007-02-07 18:35:42 · answer #9 · answered by Lt. Dan reborn 5 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Your answer is in your question,,,,Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
2007-02-07 18:26:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋