"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 Qaida, 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 Qaida in Iraq" — and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden. According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq — quote — "prestige among potential recruits and financiers."
2007-07-24
14:51:55
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
News & Events
➔ Current Events
"According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq — quote — "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida'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 Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers — and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail. " (GW Bush)
Is the POTUS' statements correct and cogent to the Iraq War debate? And why do the Democrats irresponsibly shy away from the Al Qaeda in Iraq issues?
2007-07-24
14:54:04 ·
update #1