Not the complete picture; however, right on target.

Al Qaeda is pleased with the sympathy and admiration it receives from the liberal press and liberal news media in this country. If they attack again, it would give us resolve and change our fighting tactics plus the liberal news media would have to label them "The Bad Guys". (Heaven forbid). Why is it the media always shows wounded and dead Palestinians and hardly ever the slain or wounded Jewish People. Those who control the press (and some are Jewish)have turned their back on Israel.

"Al Qaeda is pleased with the sympathy and admiration it receives from the liberal press and liberal news media in this country"

Show it to us. Show us an example of 'admiration' of Al Q in the MSM.
Show us an example of 'sympathy' in the MSM.

Come on all ye trash talking GOP'ers: Show us that you are not just talking point liars. Bring 'em on tough guys. Show this liberal to be wrong.

I'd like to know why this information is being made public. Did anyone think that Al Qaeda might change its tactics now that we know what they are up to. Not too bright in my book.

I don't believe the "liberal media" has any sympathy whatsoever for Al Quaeda, unless you consider Al Quaeda websites to be liberal. The liberal media believes in honest reporting, and has operated as a check against violations of civil liberties ever since the founding of our country.

The conservative media should follow suit; instead, they bask in comfort of "infotainment" which has no factual or substantive basis. They have no idea what investigative reporting even means.

I don't know Dr. Boom-Botz. I'd rather be Israeli than Palestinean for the same reason I'd rather be a hammer than a nail. Sure both sides do bad things to each other, but in the general scheme of things, the Palestineans are really pretty oppressed people. They have no rights; they are like a caged and cornered animal who stikes out because it has nothing left with which to negotiate. I don't think many Israelis would feel cornered or caged. I do not consider myself a sympathizer of either side, but objectively I think Israel isn't really playing on a level playing field. They have US support and mega funds flowing in, they have nukes, they have a territory which all connected. The Palestineans have none of these (except maybe some lipservice support for the 2 nation solution). What would you do to solve the problem? For if you have that solution, the need for Al Qaeda would soon just vanish...wow, there is something worth seeing.

Bush wanted to be a "war" president so bad.......That he is bankrupting the country for his own personal agenda. He needs to be removed from office and arrested for war crimes.

And Bush is just idiot to jump into the sandpit with both feet!

Little old me was saying this from day one, they were interested in destabilizing the middle east and bankrupting the US. I am still amazed at the stupidity of this administration. A child could of seen this. Why the "liberal press" played the drums to war and this administration started a 2nd font for war in the middle east, just goes to show how little we look at history and how wars are won and lost.

Seems to go against the whole Bush administration rationale that we ought to "Fight them there, so we don't have to fight them here."

At the risk of sounding like a left-wing, pinko-commie, liberal, terrorist sympathizing, Saddam loyalist, anti-military, pro-man-on-dog-on-sheep-on-old-dirty-tire, anti-religion, anti-Christmas, pro-ACLU, pro-NYTimes, pro-Bin-Laden, and any other ad-hominem labels used to attacks people like me, Democrat, I must say, it would seem that the strategy that appears to be outline in this Al-Qaeuda manual have worked.

Consider simply, for example, that the latest cost estimates for Afghanistan and Iraq by 2007 put the total at around half a trillion dollars.

Consider this current war has dragged on well past the original estimate of 6 months, that we weren't greeted as liberators, the insurgency wasn't in it's last throes, and there were no flowers and candy to greet the troops when we got there.

Instead they got suicide bombers and IED's. Car-bombs, and police and Iraqi military units infiltrated by terrorists.

Poor armor supplies, and unarmored or low armored Humvees.

Nobody believes the Bush Administration anymore when it comes to terrorism. What they probably found was some "aspirational" plans -- at best. More than likely the whole thing's been blown way out of proportion. In other words, somebody "data mined" it and somebody like al-Qaeda leaves shit like this laying around.

The "Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point"? Give me a break! That's like getting a report from the "School of the Americas" a few years back. No conflicts of interest or orders to follow at West Point, either.

Maddy Sauer -- I don't know what planet you've been to lately. The Bush Administration and GOP control of Congress is in deep poop. The events on the floor of the US House Monday last was the most sickening spectacle I've seen from the Republicans in years. Louie Gohmert trying to swiftboat Jack Murtha with the old "why we'd be speaking German or Japanese today if we had people like Jack Murtha back then." Truth is, there were lots of people like Murtha in the Pacific during WW II. And it was literally over their dead bodies that we're freer today. Murtha would have been no different.

The MSM is CONSERVATIVE. It represents the Megacorps. that own networks like ABC. What's good for their bottom line is good for the country. Period. Conservative propaganda and instilling FEAR in the American people are both good for the Media bottom lines. More people watch the b.s. they shovel out each day. And that's good for the Busheviks. too. People should be "very" scared right now. That's how "liberal" the MSM is.

What's the GOP gonna run on in November? That they've shipped your job overseas or soon will, made sure the burden of taxation has been shifted to the backs of the rapidly shrinking middle class, and that Bush -- The Decider -- can't really decide anything on his own unless he lives in some fantasy world where he only sees people like him -- the "haves and the have-mores." You think I want to vote for someone that's making me less secure because I don't have a job, or health insurance for my kids, or any real security from terrorist attack as long as we're bogged down in Iraq? That veterans returning from Iraq face budget cuts for medical and psychiatric services? Gimme a break!

Media are the biggest lobbies in Washington and they've made out like bandits since Bush took office. You really think they're going to bite the hand that feeds them?

a position I put forth over three years ago published in a small local paper in Dayton Ohio,...that 911 was more bait than the neocons could resist. Any seasoned military professional, just like any seasoned fighter knows how foolish it is to empty your clip at the first sound of fire or chase empty shadows with wasted punches.

We could have avoided the Iraq nightmare if we had simply occupied Aghanistan and heeded Gen Shineski's initial troop requirements and placed them in Afghanistan. Afghanistan would not be re-simmering and a force of that size in close proximity to the oil patch would have been more than sufficient to contend with unwanted intrusions, and the collective sympathy of the world would still be at our backs. While we waited for the ineveitable demise of Saddam's regime the covert operations neccessary to ensure a more orderly transition in his departure could have been carried out.
On considering the conduct, execution, and direction of the foreign policy fiasco it is significant to note that undermanning the occupation forces contributed to the shortfall in Iraqi oil production that has generated such extraordinary profits for the oil.

Robert Novak wrote on December 26, 2002, "that Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon "leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration..."

First - Terrorism is a tactic and not a entity. Saying we can win the "War on Terror" is like saying we can win the "War on Violence" and only targeting gangs while a act of violence can be committed by anyone at any time.

Second - This is nothing but a "Rope-A-Dope" strategy. Al-Qaeda is laying on the ropes the the U.S. are the dopes!

What liberal media ? THE MEDIA IS SO RESTRICTED IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTHAN AS TO WHAT IT CAN REPORT THAT WE AMERICANS DO NOT TRULY SEE THE LARGE PICTURE.No one I know supports Al Qaeda or the taliban or is sympathetic to them. They are America's biggest long term problem next to N. Korea and Iran. What most people have a problem with is Bush and all of his supporters because there is no integrity in this adminstration.This is George W. Bush fault for misleading this nation into Iraq on evidence that was already determined as inauthentic.Yes I like alot of Americans are fed up with Iraq but I don't beleive you can be there forever or just pull out. Nothing is that simple now and after Iraq? where will be fighting next?This is a battle that cannot be won solely on military power,we have to counter their propaganda with truth and integrity.How do you think we lost Vietnam? It was a mindset on both parts, one that recruited young children to fight us because they had no truth and no future.Sound familar look at Iraq,look at Afghanistan.

Even a worst case scenario terrorist attack would kill much less then 1% of Americans. President Bush's tactics infringe on the rights of 100% of Americans. I for one would rather run the risk of dying to some religous nut, rather than abdicating the constitutional rights generations of Americans have fought and died for. Maybe we should build prison barges, where people who want to forgo civil rights for safety can be warehoused.

It's interesting how everyone is assuming that the Bush administration is 'falling for' the Al Queda approach here.

Consider for a moment if the al Queda and Bush agendas are not totally mutually exclusive. What if there are some activities helpful to both of them, but not for the publics involved?

For example, Bush to date has received almost all of his rating improvements when he has had war milestones. WIthout the war, his ratings have plummeted since he took office.

The war has brought huge billions from the trough of the American public into selected private hands, chosen by the administration. It's skyrocketed military spending.

The agenads of Bush and Al Queda can have some overlap.

Remember the recent leak that the CIA determined the release of the bin Laden video in Oct 2004 was for the purpose of helping Bush get re-elected?

There was something implied in Dr. Boom-Botz's comments that is the primary source of this conflict. Israel has a status with our government that is just short of statehood. And this is puzzling to me. What do we get for open ended support for Israel? I don't know. I do know that we get burning hate of the entire muslim world. The time has come and past for the US to revise it's policies toward Israel.

>>they were interested in destabilizing the middle east and bankrupting the US.<<

November 1, 2004

"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.

"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations," bin Laden said.

"Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs," he said. "As for the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.

"It is true that this shows that al Qaeda has gained, but on the other hand it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something that anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Halliburton and its kind, will be convinced.

"And it all shows that the real loser is you," he said. "It is the American people and their economy."

The only way to confront cynical, misleading demagogery such as the above posted "liberal media" malarky is to stick to the facts. Like Dracula, right-wing war appologists wither in the light. Here, it is the cold hard light of the truth.

The irony isn't lost on me that Al-Qadea and the Neo-Cons had the same agenda. War abroad. Over-stretch the military. Al-Qadea benefits by the strain (militarily, financially, and psychologically) placed on the United States, and the Neo-Cons benefit by simultaneously weakening the Federal Government and using the war to rabble-rouse, obfuscate and confuse a weary and frightened populous into beliving that the right has their best interests at heart.

In actual fact, they have no heart, and nothing could be further from the truth. Like Al-Qadea, they are demonstrating a callous indifference toward human life.

It is really too bad W didn't study history, or he would have known OBL and his rag-tag bunch of US-funded jihadists kicked the USSR out of Afghanistan in the early 80's. OBL just loved hearing the "fight 'em over there so we don't have to fight 'em over here" rhetoric. Osama Bin Laden wanted our Dear Leader to be re-elected in '04 cuz with W comes the promise of an open-ended war gainst "terrorism," and Al Q is more than happy to oblige. Al Q fighters get martyrdom and 72 virgins when they die battling the "infidels," and all our troops get is pine boxes and shattered families. Heckuva job there, Dumbya! The terrorists think they are kickin' us.

Military Analyst and Veteran wrotein his comments above:
"Al Qaeda is pleased with the sympathy and admiration it receives from the liberal press and liberal news media in this country."

I think the thing is that the so called "liberal press" is intelligent enough to make the distinction between fighting Al Qaeda, ( the people who actually did attack us on 9-11) and invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, (a country which never attacked us.) Even President Bush himself has stated on the record that there is no evidenct that Saddam Hussein had any links to the attacks of September 11.

I live in Los Angeles, and the LA Times, a fairly "liberal" paper, was very supportive of Bush when he went after Al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan. But Osama Bin Laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora, and Bush has come out and said that he doesn't really think much about Osama any more. It's clear that Iraq has been a huge diversion from the hunt for Osama. Whatever happened Bush's vow to capture Osama "Dead or Alive"? My question is why this diversion to Iraq when we keep hearing the conjecture that Osama escaped into Pakistan? Something just doesn't add up here.

So my point is, I don't think it's that the press has any "sympathy and admiration" for Al Qaeda, but they do have some legitimate questions for the President as to how invading Iraq has done anything whatsoever to help hunt down Osama Bin Laden.

bush is not incompetent. he is using and applying conservative principles of the free market and rugged individualism on iraq.

"Fight them there so we don't fight them here," was always a ridiculous argument. First of all, it asssumes a finite number of terrorists...in WWII we could have (theoretically) killed all the Japanese and Germans. Unfortunately in this war for hearts and minds, brutality and collateral damage will inevitably create more terrorists. Secondly, there is no reason Al Q et al. cannot operate in two places simultaneously. And finally we have the point(s) offered by Naji. We played right into their hands...but hey, at least America is "more free" without Sadddam, right.

Perhaps further release of this information might help the American people protect itself from the continuing consequences of Republican incompetence and cowardice.

The Republican failure to protect the American people from a clearly warned Al Qaida attack on 9/11 only reinforce the Republicans' constant inability to perceive and react to genuine threats.

Perhaps simply out of shame for this failure and a desire to change the subject, the most cowardly and non-military among them began to excitedly push for an invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Certainly for a time, their confusing act of chest-beating to imply that their failures and stupidity were some sort of nation-saving courage, could perhaps work with the American people.

I, on the other hand, have full confidence that given time the American people will mature past the shock of the 9/11 attacks and will clearly see the posturing knuckleheads for who they are.

When I served my time in the military -- something most of the cowardly Republicans in office staunchly avoided -- there were occasional loud, proud bullies, but most of the time our commanders were smarter than to give them more authority than they could handle.

I agree that the US responded to 9-11 as a typical imperialistic bully would. That is usually what brings their downfall. I am totally against this WAR in Iraq, but lately feel we should maybe 'stay the course'. It benefits the rest of the other countries globally that are not 'Pro-USA' to live under their own democratically designed vision for themselves. The US only meddles when corparate greed is endangered.

You Liberals will stop till you destroy the US will you?
This story is made up to support the cut and run crowd

The tactics do make perfect sense. They worked against the USSR in Afghanistan when used by the Mujahadeen (precursor to al Qaeda) back when Reagan/Bush Sr. thought OBL was a good guy, hmm, just like Saddam Hussein (coincidence?). Why shouldn't they work against the US as well?
So far, our leadership is just as bright even adopting some Soviet techniques. What's freedom besides something that helps terrorists anyway?

This is a forgery published by our own psy-ops to convince us..."gotta fight em over there to keep them form coming here." Nonsense...spend the kind of money we are spending in Iraq on border security and Law enforcement and we would have a utopia, and money left over to fix our schools..but you can;t have a smart safe population..they might vote democrat...gotta keep em poor, stupid and scared.
It is a fake.

This is a forgery published by our own psy-ops to convince us..."gotta fight em over there to keep them form coming here." Bullshit...spend the kind of money we are spending in Iraq on border security and Law enforcement and we would have a freaking utopia, and money left over to fix our schools..but you can;t have a smart safe population..they might vote democrat...gotta keep em poor, stupid and scared.
It is a fake.

Al-Qaeda's strategic vision is right on the money with anticipating the sorry overreaction which has been guiding the administration's "war on terror" since inception.

Above all, it may well explain why there have been no attacks in America after 9/11/01, as well as why there has been not one major cell of proven Al-Qaeda species uncovered here.

As to the "home grown" terrorists beginning to emerge everywhere they and their parents have been granted asylum, that is the bonus Al-Qaeda gets from sitting back and watching
them trained in Iraq before they go home to start trouble. Or simply watching them get indoctrinated by the "refugee" immams on welfare in London, for instance.

That is the "War on Terror" the gullible, scared public still believes is being fought right: the fight which "was brought to the enemy", just the way Al-Qaeda hoped
it would be.

I am a retired army Lieutenant colonel. When we invaded Afghanistan I applauded Bush's decision, but felt he should have gone in with five times the number of boots on the ground to seal the border and kill Bin Laden. He screwed up and decided he could take Iraq easy (what a joke!) I, along with many of my military colleagues, are students of a chinese leader that wrote a book thousands of years ago. While it teachs a good deal about the tactics of war, it has great strategic significance. The name of the book is "The Art of War," by Sun Tsu. In the first chapter he proclaims that the best leaders are those that are able to keep their country from war. Later he says that the basic idea is to start a war when your enemy is weak and you are strong. Also that you do not want to fight wars too far away from your own borders as it is more difficult from a logistics standpoint, and wars should be short in duration, so your country does not tire of it and the costs increase. It is obvious that Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Republican neocons have not read the book either. I have said since 2003 that when we invaded Iraq we were making the same mistake we made in Vietnam and the Russians made in Afghanistan. We are being bled in a war we should not be in, too far from home, and at a tremendous cost. When my Republican friends have told me that there has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 2001--I tell them that it is not in the best interest of al queda to attack us here again. They have world opinion on their side, and we have transported Americans right into the middle east where they are close by and easy to kill. This article is not a great revelation to me, and should not be to any thinking person. Of course "W" has never been accused of being a thinking person. "Stay the course." As long as it is someone elses son or daughter getting killed or maimed!

Bin Laden said the same thing in a public tape a couple years back. All we have to do is raise the Al Queda flag in some remote spot and the US will spend millions just to get there overnight.
Also remember that for the first year the Iraqi people waited, they watched what was happening. After they didn't get work and the army was disbanded, No water or electricity, they got the picture pretty quickly.

Could have been so different if we gave contracts to Iraqis' and not haliburton, hell they might even have running water by now.

So where's the story? Who or what has blanked it out?

"Al Qaeda"

HA!

Al Qaeda is largely a myth. bin Laden never used that term to describe his small organization until well after 1998 when the US began using it as a coverall term to enable the US to go after anyone deemed a member of "Al Qaeda" via legislation geared toward fighting organized crime.

Pick up a copy of "Al Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam" by Jason Burke for some truth behind the history of the radical Islamic movement and the deconstruction of the "Al Qaeda" myth.

How is it that people that support freedom of speech, thought,honest government,honest elections..all the things we are told Al Queda hates..are twisted into the ones that "support" the terrorists. The logical argument would run exactly the other way. Its radical republican bizzaro world all over the librl medya.

"The translation is being released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point."

"I'd like to know why this information is being made public. Did anyone think that Al Qaeda might change its tactics now that we know what they are up to. Not too bright in my book.
Posted by: D. Fife"

That's because the folks at the Combating Terrorism Center are really the Dixie Chicks in disguise.

This basic scenario was outlined in Richard Clarks book, "Against All Enemies". It makes complete sense.

I like how all you Gop people think that if we just keep quiet and let the governmernt do what it "needs" to do everything will just be ok. Freedom requires freedom of information, open discussion, and transparency. When these things are lost we no longer will have true freedom. Just some cowardly half baked version of it. So what if Al Queda knows we have their "book", the intelligence community works on an entirely differnt level of operation so that discussion of such a book has no real effect. It's all political. The radical right is just miffed that the folly of being drawn into an impossible insurgency was actually what the enemy was hoping for all along.

Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.
-Benjamin Franklin

Once again Osama is helping the PNAC cabal with their agenda.

Seems clear that the American Oligarchy and Al Quaida are both getting what they want, as money squandered on the war and the number of "terrorists" are both increasing exponentially...

The one and only reason we have not had another major terrorist attack in the United States is that Al Qaeda has chosen not to launch one.

Obviously, they feel their ends are being served by our current actions, with no need for course-correction from them.

In other words, they're winning.

we have people who are described as strategic and intellectual giants...being outsmarted...by al q.

and here's what's really disgusting:

we elected them...TWICE.

so...how smart are americans?

The Bush Administration has fallen into the same trap that the old Soviet Poliburo did in Afghanistan.

"Al Qaeda is pleased with the sympathy and admiration it receives from the liberal press and liberal news media in this country."
Posted by: Military Analyst & Veteran | Jun 27, 2006 11:57:05 AM

WHAT LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!
Where was the "Liberal" media when the country was scammed into this war? Where was the reporting on the Carlisle Group connections to the policy makers? Where was the reporting on PNAC's influence on the administration and its war policy, AAAHHHHH. You rightwingers have no factual or moral ground under your feet...just a big pile of money and lies.

BOGUS
Al Qaeda is a fiction of Cheney

Boy, is Bush stupid! He has fallen right into the Al Qaeda trap. Advistors in his administration had to know this would happen. Nonetheless they invaded Iraq and removed the SECULAR government that was our ally for 20 years. Now Iran has the upper hand at dominating the terrority. The simple question I have is, WHY IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AIDING IRAN?

Al-CIA-da...we created them...they are just as loyal to their paymasters as they were in the 80s.Our plutarchs (as usual) are the real enemy...

Bush is playing chess against the people that invented the game, and he can barely play checkers.

Chalk one up for our heroic liberals........

WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration fell one vote short of the 67-vote threshold needed for Senate passage and referral to the states. (Happy 4th of July)

Bush is not smart and it shows with this war on terror. Bin Laden has had Bush & neocons pegged, like a good chess player. The US might be the most powerful military but if the civilian leaders (deciders) are stupid and they trump the military leaders, failure is the outcome. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, we should have let Saddam stew in his poision & his regime would have collapsed without out invasion. Let this be a lesson to all Americans: spin & acting tough is an election winner, but a massive loser for the country.

This goes to show how well our responses have worked for the large attack! For small attacks, like the shoe bomber in the USA, Britain's bus bombings and the Bali bombing, we'll fight them in court instead of the battle field. The small attack is all that Al Queda can summon up--small cells of crazies determined to kill innocent men, women and children. Saddam is about to get his just reward for slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own people. Bin Laden is next, he'd look great with a rope tight around his neck! See him in court, judged by the same people he has pledged to kill!

God bless our troops!
Tmblweed

LET THE PEOPLE OF IRAQ DECIDE
WHEN COALITION TROOPS LEAVE

The US should offer to withdraw coalition forces by the end of this year unless the people of Iraq invite us to stay for another year (through 2007) by a referendum vote.

This would be a very honorable and astute political move by the American Government. By asking the people of Iraq to decide when foreign troops leave their country instead of American politicians, we don’t seem so arrogant. We can prove to the world our good intentions as well as our faith in Iraq’s democracy. It might well be the first time in the history of our planet that a victorious military conqueror ever asked the losers when the occupation of their country should end. It would also disprove claims by al Qaeda and Muslim extremists that the US and our allies are “crusaders” or “foreign invaders” . . . and hopefully seriously undercut their recruiting efforts.

Our troops have accomplished their mission

Saddam Hussein has been removed from power and a democratic Constitution that even guarantees free health care and education (including college) for all citizens has been approved by the Iraqi people. A newly elected government is in place and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces have been trained. While much more needs to be done to improve Iraq’s economy and infrastructure, those are not military objectives.

Our troops really have accomplished their mission. They should not remain any longer unless the people of Iraq invite us to stay to help with security. A referendum vote in Iraq should take place no later than the end of September or middle of October. The ballot should read something like the following:

“The US and Coalition Forces will turn security over to the Government of Iraq and leave the country by 31 December 2006, unless the people of Iraq invite them to remain another year to help with rebuilding and ensure security. Do you invite Coalition Forces to stay in Iraq until 31 December 2007 as guests of the Iraqi people?”
Yes ____ No ____

If the people of Iraq vote “no” we should leave as promised. If the people don’t want us, we cannot be effective. Remaining thereafter would only increase insurgencies, tensions and violence, while sending more of our troops home in body bags. By letting the Iraqi people decide if they’re ready to handle their own security, our troops can leave with honor.

In an article which appeared Tuesday, June 20, 2006 in the Washington Post, Iraq's own National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie recently wrote: “The eventual removal of coalition troops from Iraqi streets will help the Iraqis, who now see foreign troops as occupiers rather than the liberators they were meant to be. It will remove psychological barriers and the reason that many Iraqis joined the so-called resistance in the first place.”

He also wrote: “The removal of troops will also allow the Iraqi government to engage with some of our neighbors that have to date been at the very least sympathetic to the resistance because of what they call the "coalition occupation." . . . Moreover, the removal of foreign troops will legitimize Iraq's government in the eyes of its people. Iraq has to grow out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its own mistakes, and find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems, with the knowledge that our friends and allies are standing by with support and help should we need it.”

Although polls seem to suggest otherwise, if the Iraqis did vote “yes” to keep coalition forces in Iraq for another year, the same referendum question should be asked each consecutive year thereafter until our forces are no longer needed in Iraq.
If the Iraqis vote for troops to remain another year, this would change our posture in Iraq and encourage more of their citizens to cooperate with our troops to defeat the insurgents and foreign terrorists. Our troops would then in fact be “guests” of the Iraqi people instead of occupiers. According to the Koran as well as Arab and Muslim tradition, guests are protected and treated with respect. This means that even though our troops would still be in Iraq, fewer lives would be lost, and they’ll know when the mission will end.

Osama bin Laden is a CIA asset, Al Quaeda is a CIA organization, and the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by the US government in order to create an excuse for the USA's conquest of the Middle East for control of the vast oil reserves that are located there.

Oh give me a break! I am so sure al-quada has written a hand book that just so happens to conviently let GWB and his bunch of the hook with Homeland security funding (or lack of it in NYC)Come on guys the only thing ever released from the Dod or any DC organization these days is purely political manuevering from the karl rove and dick cheney love fest factory. Like everything else out of DC it will back fire after it is forgotten from the 24 hour news cycle. Won't get fooled again yeah sure go ahead fishies take the bait you always do.

Did you ever think Al Quaeda changed their "goal" to match what has happened to make it appear to be a victory for them.

It's a very common stratigic propaganda concept to always make it appear as if things are going as YOU planed and dynamically change your past plans to take advantage of the situation as it is, even if it isn't what you originally hoped or planed for. It is foolish to ever show a sign of weakness, or lack of control or foresight in a confrontational situation.

You can find examples of this all around now and in history, Bush has done it, Clinton has done it, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam have done it.

Truitt is right on, and his comments really help bring up the question:

Is it time to consider Al Qaeda an actor on the world stage?

An "actor," of course, is anything that can exert its influence to the degree necessary to illicit a response from the other actors.

If it is true, and Al Qaeda actually has a strategy as this story claims, then there is no avoiding the FACT that Al Qaeda, and OBL have acheived "pseudo-statehood." The fact that they can devise such a strategy and actually implement it means that they are no longer just a group of terrorists with a crazy figurehead.

Why not leave the right wing pride behind and recognize Al Qaeda as, literally, a force to be reckoned with, and attempt to seek diplomatic means in order to end the hostilities that can now be said to exist between two evenly matched (in the sense of each side being able to wound the other but neither side able to strike a victory blow) entities? It's been obvious all along that the 9/11 attacks, as well as previous "terrorist" attacks, were not ideologically motivated. OBL and his Lt's use ideology to recruit soldiers, but their own aims are political. They are, in a sense, a country without a citizen population; they have chosen an oligarchy (if not a monarchy) as their form of government, and they have a "military" that, because of its nature and the tactics and strategy it employs, can exert the same KIND of influence on the world that that of a superpower such as the US can. They are carrying out attacks for a reason, yet this reason is never discussed in the government, unless it is the Bushevik LIE that they attack us because "they hate our freedom" and that they say all "infidels" must die. While it is true that there are some clerics that have declared that as fatwah, it is by no means a believable reason for 9/11. America was targeted specifically, not "infidels."

When will we, as a country, realize that we are losing the "war on terror" for the same reason we're losing the "war on drugs?" This administration is corrupt and they must be held accountable.

There is a way to make peace through diplomatic means with Al Qaeda, the now legitimate nation-state.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

One problem, Stu:

OBL and Al Qaeda are on the record with that strategy prior to the here and now. Meaning they've been trying to acheive this A PRIORI, before the fact, whereas you are attempting to assert that they "made this up" A POSTERIORI, after the fact, to make it look like they've acheived their aims. Doesn't wash, Stu.

What do we, as Americans, know about Al Qaeda and it's real aims and motivations aside from "terrorist training manuals" and the ideological pamphlets that are used to recruit suicide bombers? We only know what the government and the "liberal media" (incomprehensible that anyone could think that the MSM is liberal) have decided to tell us. We know nothing of what Al Qaeda wants. It has a goal, it wants to acheive a political end, it wants to right something it sees as a wrong. This war could be ended if we recognize Al Qaeda as a "legitimate" world player and seek diplomatic talks.

This just underscores the idiocy of the Bush administration.

We'll be paying, and our grandchildren will be paying, for Bush's blunders for decades to come.

You want to kill terrorists? Fine, do it in dark alleys away from the media spotlight. Don't give them the attention they crave.

What does Bush do? He has to pretend like he's John Wayne, going in with guns blazing with the network news in tow.

The lack of planning, the utter incompetence of civilian leadership, and the level of graft, corruption, and outright thievery of American tax dollars, is absolutely unforgivable.

Unless the guy in the cave with a laptop had moles in the CIA, FBI, NORAD and the FAA, he would not have been able to pull off 9/11 with a few undereducated, unskilled Saudis and Egytians who could not even fly a Cessna. He could not have orchestrated the simultaneous drills all codenamed Vigilant somethingorother that ensured that only 14 fighter jets were available to defend the whole US, and left air traffic controllers completely confused. And how did he cause the collapse of WT7 that was not even hit by a plane. And why have I not yet seen a single photo of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon. And why did American Airlines spend so much money in 2004 developing a technology to make cell phone calls from commercial planes at cruising altitude and speed if the technology already existed in 2001 (remember the calls from Flight 93)? So many questions, and not a single answer!

Stu said,

"... It is foolish to ever show a sign of weakness, or lack of control or foresight in a confrontational situation...."

OK, then, so you advocate "Stay the Course as a strategy? 2500 soldiers have died because Bush wants to be a war president, more dying every day, 20,000 young people permanently damaged,our economy will take generations to recover, we've killed 50,000 to 200,000 innocent Iraquis who never did a d-mn thing to us, the Constitution is inoperative for all practical purposes, and all you got is a stale old platitude? Buddy, how does this little gem apply to the reality that we as a nation face? And when are you going to Iraq to support your president?

One former comment mentioned that we are upon the same path the soviet union took when they embarked upon Afghanistan. You will recall that this war cost the Communist Regime its exixtence.The corporate imperialists under Bush may very well be going in the same direction.They are spending too much money. lives and good will in this silly war which only enriches the coffers of a small CEO class.For instance, $500 billion we know of has gone to the enterprise, 2525 soldiers have died with tens of thousands wounded badly, and now China and Russia have suddenly been hyper critical of our industrial (rather international entrepreneur- military complex. It could be that the seeds of big decline have been sewn and the young powers on the sidelines have seen this and wait for the moment they will become greater than the USA. I mean China, India and of course Russia. One apt metaphor portrays America as Swift's Gulliver on the toils of the Lilliputians a better one would be a gravestone, worn by time and the elements. Change is inevitable my friends and America is not immune, nor is all change for the better.

Bush plays right into the hands of anyone who has a brain. I heard a 6 year old beat him at chess in 3 moves.

This is actually not very surprising. Al Queda calls us Crusaders who want to rule the Middle East, and since 9/11, we have been conforming more closely to their image. Ron Suskind's new book quotes CIA analysts that Bin Laden wanted Bush to be re-elected, and this must have been part of the reason.

Much of the medium and long term war plan devised by Osama bin Laden, in consultation with Turabi, members of the Algerian Salifist and the Ayatollah in Iran was revealed in Bodansky's book, published in about 1998, IIRC.

This rather long paper (which I STRONGLY recommend to serious analyst) lays out a remarkably scholarly analysis of the rationale behind the strategy. Very well written and a great job of translating.

I am grateful to ABC for providing a link to this. ABC didn't actually release it to the world, by the way. The U.S. Military Academy at West Point did.

They also have some serious, objective analyst who aren't so wrapped up with myopia as are many of the jingoist posting in this venue.

Mike

A reasonable person would have come to the conclusion given the available info, that Iraq was not a threat to the security of the USA. People can be made unreasonable given an effective appeal to fear, which is what this administration and the MSM so skillfully did.

Those that manipulated us into this war are, in my opinion, unpatriotic. What true patriot would have undertaken such a reckless gamble with our blood and treasure unless they didn't care about our country? We will be paying the price for this reckless folly for a long time to come.

Isn't it interesting that all the administration warhawks who hyped this war aren't veterans; except for our "War President," who isn't a combat vet because his family connections kept him out of harm's way during the Vietnam War by enabling him to jump a 500 person 2 year waiting list for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard?

Dr. Vinny,

Survey says: there are more Palestinians injured by the Israelis than Israelis injured by Palestinians.

Bing, bing, bing.

-GSD

A five year old monkey could have figured this out.

And have repeatedly assuring us that we have to fight them over there so they don't attack us here,the bush adminsitration is aware of it too.

I agree, there are more Palestinians injured by the Israelis. However they should give the Israelis equal time showing the horrors of terrorist attacks by suicide bombers. Haven't seen any Israeli suicide bombers in Palestine bombing civilian buses, restaurants etc.(not to mention, Be-headings)

Does this make sense to anyone:
" I am the all mighty (insert diety here) and Behold the heavens and the earth that