WEATHER »

Al Qaeda Fears


Sunday, January 12, 2014
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Share Article

In 2014, al Qaeda is bigger, stronger and more dangerous, thanks to President Obama’s disastrous Middle East policies of abandoning Iraq and supporting the Arab Spring.

In 2011, Iraq had a chance to establish an ordered government. However, Obama failed to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Prime Minister Maliki that would have left a portion of U.S. troops to keep order. The result, al Qaeda and other terrorists filled the vacuum.

Today, we see the outcome, as al Qaeda fighters linked to the Islamic state in Iraq and Levant, have taken over Fullujah and parts of Ramadi. This is important because Iraq is a big, populated country and possesses the world’s fifth largest oil reserves.

But, don’t forget the Arab Spring. As Obama actively led and supported the overthrow of Middle East dictators, civil wars ensued and a powerful, well-organized al Qaeda was more than happy to fill the void. Today, al Qaeda and its affiliates have stolen our weapons and are fighting in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, and Africa.

Sadly, Obama’s politically driven policies have tipped the scales in favor of al Qaeda and other terrorists as Christians are being persecuted. Once again, America’s power and prestige have diminished, and we are in more danger.

Comments

Independent Discussion Guidelines

Why isn't China preoccupied with Middle Eastern squabbles? Have they got better things to do? Iraq's army/police aren't secular, they're 100% Shi'ite, thanks to W. His policy of gotta-keep-em-separated was not crafted for the ages. Before that, Saddam was our buddy. No sign of Shi'ite and Sunni uniting to become Shunni. Arab spring needed Obama? Really? Ottomans at least split the ME into coherent tribal units. Let em all settle their hash. They gotta sell oil to prosper, anyway.

Adonis_Tate (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 1:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Thorn's votes for Bush in 2000 and 2004 opened the door for al Queda in Iraq. Now he wants to blame Obama it . How long were we to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq ? Who was going to pay for it ? Why did we even go there in the first place? Weren't the 9/11 attackers from Saudi Arabia?

geeber (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 4:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Maliki made it impossible for Obama to leave a small force in Iraq, Don, and likewise you can see Karza trying to extort $ from us by threatening to scuttle a residual American force in Afghanistan. Note that in the presidential debates, Romney tried floating a vague {'maybe we will have to stay longer'} idea that cost him votes, so the American people basically don't want to fight, die, and lose money in either of these theaters of our ongoing global empire.
It's a laughable lie when you write "Obama actively led and supported the overthrow of Middle East dictators," and your sad un-American fearfulness exposed in your mendacious conclusion, "Once again, America’s power and prestige have diminished, and we are in more danger." "Once again"?! ONCE AGAIN!? We've never recovered our prestige OR our global power after your man Bush 43's colossal, over-reaching, ignorant blunders. He as full of fear, too, as another demon-obsessed pseudo-Christian. And geeber: you voted for Bush. YOU are so full of angst and Tea Party wimpi-ness, try growing up. And learn some facts.

DrDan (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 6:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I suspect that the thorny two are having a troll-off to see who can garner the most negative responses. Maybe the Indy can give them one of those goofy regular columns that no one reads except for laughs. Poli-psychics?

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Fear" being the operative word.

native2sb (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don. Wrong on so many levels. The failure to negotiate a SOFA occurred under the Bush administration and the Bush administration started the withdrawal.

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yet people like the Thorns will claim to be nonpartisan, but where was their outcry during the Bush administrations War on Humanity?
I love how they pretend they're working with facts. Allah save us from stupid people.

Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Facts

1) There were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the Bush II invasion of Iraq.

2) Bush signed the SOFA. See below. If you wanted US military troops subject to Iraqi courts per SOFA, then staying on would be fine with you. Bush signed that treaty, not Obama.

3) Obama supported with some military power, the Arab spring in Libya. But it was minimal, and mostly conducted by NATO.

4) Obama has not supported the Arab Spring anywhere else with any lethal military weaponry. If anyone from Syria read the comment "Obama’s disastrous Middle East policies of abandoning Iraq and supporting the Arab Spring" they would roll on the floor laughing and howling. I frequent a few Syria uprising blogs, and the derision they express for Obama's lack of support for the Syrians/Arab Spring is a daily occurrence.

This OP, once again, is riddled with errors. It would help to try reading blogs from all sides, left, right, middle, Middle East, Arab countries, to get an idea of what is going on. This is just blind, ignorant Obama-bashing at its worst. However, it does provide an opportunity to POSSIBLY open eyes to other viewpoints.

SOFA from Wikipedia
The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: "Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq") was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.[1] The pact required criminal charges for holding prisoners over 24 hours, and required a warrant for searches of homes and buildings that were not related to combat.[1] U.S. contractors working for U.S. forces would have been subject to Iraqi criminal law, while contractors working for the State Department and other U.S. agencies would retain their immunity. If U.S. forces committed still undecided "major premeditated felonies" while off-duty and off-base, they would have been subjected to an undecided procedures laid out by a joint U.S.-Iraq committee if the U.S. certified the forces were off-duty.[2][3][1][4]

As reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration proceeded with the plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they returned from a break in late November 2011 shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not have be given immunity from Iraqi courts, a concern for American commanders in the field who also had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and the general state of Iraq's readiness for transfer of power.[68]

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Some comments from a Syria blog - so much for "supporting the Arab Spring."

Comment: Horror. Assad and ISIS are beyond animals --- they are depraved monsters, alien from humanity.
Reply: And Obama supports them by doing nothing.

Comment: Definitely, the situation is bad, very bad. #Syria
Reply: If ASSad was ousted back in early 2012 militarly things wouldn't have come so far, blame OBAMA the "friend" of Syria.

Comment: Russia, Iran, Hezbolah, Iraqi Shia militias were constantly supplying ASSad while idiot Obama restricted supplies to rebels in chase for some of his utter illusion fantasy of negotiated settlement.

Comment: If it was after the skum Obama and Kerry the Saudis will cut off arms supplies to the rebels to force them to go to Geneva given an even bigger hand to ASSad and Iran only that now Saudis and Turkey fortunately don't listen to those idiots from Washington anymore.

Comment: It's not like Obama and Co can offer a better alternative!! in one of the most critical moments in middle east history and event which will define it for hundreds of years the US has one of the most utterly idiotic, incompetent and short sighted presidents ever

(My opinion - this is a ME matter, and should be sorted out by ME players, and NOT the US. Obama is wise NOT to intervene, because we cannot afford it militarily, and the bulk of the US population wants no more wars. There are others such as McCain and Graham that want Obama to "support the Arab Spring", but he has resisted. Thus to see him blamed for supporting the Arab Spring is 100% groan-worthy.)

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 12, 2014 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I remember reading about the President Proclamation that Al Qaeda was Dead on National TV awhile back in 2013, yet the buzz at the Facility I work at in DC is that Mr. Thorn is correct, Al Qaeda is twice as strong as it was before. "Winning the Hearts and Minds", program failed in Vietnam and so too in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Anointed One (Obama) has been running that game ever since he fell into Office, although it was an Epic Failure when Bushed announced that the War was over and we had won, before our Forces were able to get a firm foot hold in ever troubled spot in both Iraq and Afghanistan but its been over four (4) years since The Anointed One has been ruining the Country, still the same old game as before and our Enemies keep getting Bigger and Stronger!

dou4now (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 6 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No big fan of Obama, but I don't think he's trying to win any hearts and minds with drone strikes. Most of your post is just the usual anti-Obama rhetoric. "The buzz at the Facility(sic)...?" Give me a break and stop trying to play the special ops-type insider. I don't think anyone's buying it. Lots of people work in DC, some in quite mundane jobs.

zappa (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

President Obama never wanted to work out an agreement with the
Iraqi government. Furthermore, as Gates revealed, he never believed
in a victory in Afghanistan and it is no secret he is no fan of our military.
Today, al Qadea is stronger, Israel is in grave danger, the Middle East is ablaze and the US is in more danger than ever.
Obama has been president for 5 years. This is his legacy.

thethorns4 (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

doesn't matter who is Prez, the middle east has been ablaze since noah beached the ark, israel is always in danger, and this country is always at risk.

to hang this just on obama is a couple shades of dense.

lawdy (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don: Please define "victory in Afghanistan." How much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for that "victory" and how many American lives are you willing to pay?

Tigershark (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thorns4: answer Tiger: Alexander the Great, the British Empire, the Soviet Empire to note just few who failed to "conquer" Afghanistan. That was a loony idea from the get-go, but the Thorns are asking us to 'believe Obama never believed in a victory in Afgh." -- of course he didn't, he isn't an idiot and he understand history. The surge was stupid, and cost us money and men and prestige, why aren't you writing about this , Don?? Why aren't you writing about 16% of USA living at the poverty level, eh?
Give up your pretentious and florid declarations, huff, huff: "This is his legacy" horse-pukky!! The ACA, for better or worse, will likely be his legacy, but since he has a few more years, and unlike the Thorns with their prophetic abilities, I have to retain "likely" since no one can know.
You answer nothing in Tabatha's thoughtful response to your ignorant, delusional, Tea Party malarkey.

DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nobody should fear Al-CIA-duh.

Fear the Department of Homeland Security.

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Winning hearts and minds? That will never happen anywhere America stomps its foot until we believe in 'Give us your poor, tired, sick....' but no, we turn them away and we send them back to their horrid conditions because they are 'illegal'. IF this country wanted to nation build, they would take in those seeking better, those suffering. Hypocritical: all their words and phrases used to justify war and takeover, belief in xian values. They worship at the altar of $ and sacrifice our own anywhere they see fit. To think there was 'victory' in any of this shows our country has failed at education and excelled in brainwashing. This opinion letter above, I submit as proof. "Don't forget the Arab Spring"...never forget, right? Learn some history that goes past 2 decades and includes the rest of the Earth, then maybe we can get to our solar system, galaxy, universe... ; Short sighted.

spacey (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree with spacey to a large extent, but first let's go waaaaay back... Imagine how much better international relations would be today if we had let all of the Jews come here during WWII instead of having them settle in hostile territory in Israel?

Would we even care about Iran at all?

loonpt (anonymous profile)
January 13, 2014 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

>2008 - Bush negotiations - Iraq would not sign any agreement unless it include a date for withdrawal. Why was Bush unable to sign an agreement that did not include a date of withdrawal. Oh, that's right, it's Obama's fault, before he had even won the election. "We will not accept any memorandum of understanding if it does not give a specific date for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops," national security advisor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie told reporters in the holy city of Najaf.

>"A new memoir by Robert Gates paints a damning picture of Mr Obama's management of the war, saying the president was "sceptical if not outright convinced" his generals' plans would end in failure"
Obama went along with his generals' plans for Afghanistan, even though he did not believe it would work. That is, he put the generals' plans for Afghanistan ahead of his own thoughts. That shows respect for the military. I do not understand the criticisms of him for doing that. The fact that he did not think it would work, and it did not work, does not detract from the fact that he listened to the military first, and allowed them to implement their plan.

>Really? Check the links below, and see if you can say that again with a straight face. I think the "secret" is of your own imagining.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/w...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/michel...
http://www.defense.gov/home/features/...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/joiningforces
There are more, from all types of sources, if you google "michelle obama military families"

The baseless, factless, bogus and evidence-free smears are bordering on the sickening. Please, before you write anything, check google and look for the truth, because others will, to refute your claims.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ooops, I used "<<" to quote the points of a post, but they did not show up - hence just my replies are displayed.

tabatha (anonymous profile)
January 17, 2014 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

event calendar sponsored by: