Murtha says "Al Qaeda won't be a factor in Iraq once the US is gone"

JaJae · 02-13-2007, 12:46 PM

Video: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Murtha rips Howard, says Iraqis will rout AQ “the minute we’re gone”

Basically the Australian Prime Minister John Howard lashed out on the Democratic plan to pull out of Iraq in March. He said basically said al Qaeda would circle the day on their calendars and it would be worse in Iraq.

Wolf asked Murtha of his opinion on what Howard said and Murtha got a bit aggressive.

Murtha's response (paraphrased):
1. Howard hasn't really participated heavily in the deployment
2. The American public are paying
3. American troops are in harms way everyday (note, money was mentioned first)
4. It's uncalled for Howard to say anything on this issue! Howard is just trying to interfere in the American elections! This is a policy issue between us and the President only!
5. We appreciate their help, but they haven't done anything compared to us.
and finally he says:
"I am absolutely convinced.... the minute we're gone, they'll take care of al Qaeda by themselves."

Now, the above 1-5 doesn't surprise me. The plan to pull out is essentially his plan, and we've all seen how Murtha gets when someone criticizes him. I'm not surprised he attacked the Prime Minister, afterall Howard was extremely critical of his plan. I don't think it was the best political move, but I understand his need to slander, make accusations and discredit him.

All that said, Murtha does know more about Iraq than most. And if he's absolutely convinced that al Qaeda will be wiped out by Iraq once we're gone, doesn't that go against everything we've been hearing from both sides.

The liberals have been saying that the training of the Iraqi troops is inadequate, they don't have enough, they're too corrupt, their skills are subpar and they're unable to defend themselves. Obviously not every liberal is saying all of these things, but this is the common perception I would believe. Yet Murtha now, when his plan is criticized is essentially saying if we pull out Iraq can handle whatever happens to it. This is quite a contradiction from what we've all been hearing... from both sides!

Is Murtha right and every other opinion I've heard on this wrong? And if we listen to Murtha and Iraq goes to a shithole, what do you think would happen to US politics, Murtha's career, etc.

Pro Street · 02-13-2007, 12:56 PM

We're not even controlling Al-Queda in Iraq right now.

The other Militias in Iraq, the ones we're fighting, are also fighting Al-Queda such as Sadr's forces.

DosEquis · 02-13-2007, 01:04 PM

Personally I think if John Howard feels this conflict is so important and so worthy of support...such a huge risk we can't have failure.. he needs to shut up and send some more soldiers. 1,400 soldiers is nickel and dime shit. Bump it to 14,000 to go with our additional 20,000.

DosEquis · 02-13-2007, 01:07 PM

There is very little, if any, Al Qaeda in Iraq today. You can't really lose to something that is not there.

JaJae · 02-13-2007, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Personally I think if John Howard feels this conflict is so important and so worthy of support...such a huge risk we can't have failure.. he needs to shut up and send some more soldiers. 1,400 soldiers is nickel and dime shit. Bump it to 14,000 to go with our additional 20,000.

I agree with this. I understand they're helping and all that jazz and they're a good friend to the US. But, they really aren't doing much to have much for Howard to speak so strongly like he did. It's one thing to speak your mind, it's another to be so critical. He could have just said "I disagree with it because..." It was almost as if he was making fun of the idea and trying to show he knew better than the Democrats who brought up the plan.

kinggovernor · 02-13-2007, 05:42 PM

if we leave and the shittes dominate the country then Al Qeada may be hurt but they aren't going to vanish into thin air

Pro Street · 02-13-2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if we leave and the shittes dominate the country then Al Qeada may be hurt but they aren't going to vanish into thin air

so let's stay forever

kinggovernor · 02-13-2007, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

so let's stay forever

let's stay there until we can get some adquate security forces:
1. shittes that will go after the militias
2. sunnis that will go after al queda

Kytro · 02-13-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Personally I think if John Howard feels this conflict is so important and so worthy of support...such a huge risk we can't have failure.. he needs to shut up and send some more soldiers. 1,400 soldiers is nickel and dime shit. Bump it to 14,000 to go with our additional 20,000.

While I would prefer no of our troops there 14,000 isn't going to happen. That would be about 30% of all the forces (excluding reservists). It is not politically viable.

Howard is merely continuing his arse-kissing "strategy".

RMNIXON · 02-13-2007, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

if we leave and the shittes dominate the country then Al Qeada may be hurt but they aren't going to vanish into thin air

It is a sure bet they will take advantage of the chaos.

How Murtha can say something like this I must wonder? Perhaps a mental exam is in order?

RMNIXON · 02-13-2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

There is very little, if any, Al Qaeda in Iraq today. You can't really lose to something that is not there.

What is your intelligence on that? What is little?

JSmythe · 02-13-2007, 07:59 PM

He is right.

DosEquis · 02-13-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

What is your intelligence on that? What is little?

There never has been a significant amount of Al Qaeda or operatives in Iraq. Even after Saddam was removed Zarqawi wrote OBL for membership to the club known as Al Qaeda. He was already in the country and was looking for a financial/weapons ally to help him out. He had to carry out all sorts of attacks before OBL and co. signed him up. Like an initiation or something.

During Saddam's rule Al Qaeda was a threat to his control in Iraq. If they came out of the wood work he would put his thumb on them like he did with anyone else who tried to revolt.

Pro Street · 02-13-2007, 11:56 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

let's stay there until we can get some adquate security forces:
1. shittes that will go after the militias
2. sunnis that will go after al queda

nobody has stated otherwise. not even those fabled "cut and run" democrats.

SICKGUY · 02-19-2007, 09:04 PM

i honestly dont believe things are ever going to get better in iraq while americans are still occupying the country. we are fueling all this anger in that region, and nothing we do is going to change radical muslims minds.

DosEquis · 02-19-2007, 09:16 PM

The former head of the bin laden unit was just on Keith Olbermann. If you read this thread, he provides a lot of insight on the issue.

kinggovernor · 02-20-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

i honestly dont believe things are ever going to get better in iraq while americans are still occupying the country. we are fueling all this anger in that region, and nothing we do is going to change radical muslims minds.

not really, its a sunni vs shia dance

Donkey® · 02-21-2007, 08:32 AM

There's al queda everywhere in some shape or form. There are people in Iraq of Iraqi descent fighting them. That's all we need to know. There is no "safe haven" for them in Iraq. There never was. Al Queda had no friend in Saddam and Saddam had no friend in Al Queda. It's a total and complete fallacy to state otherwise.

kinggovernor · 02-21-2007, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

There's al queda everywhere in some shape or form. There are people in Iraq of Iraqi descent fighting them. That's all we need to know. There is no "safe haven" for them in Iraq. There never was. Al Queda had no friend in Saddam and Saddam had no friend in Al Queda. It's a total and complete fallacy to state otherwise.

they now have friends with sunni muslims