Monday, July 11, 2011

Whose Is Now Claiming the Invasion of Iraq Was To Get Al-Qaeda?

Yes, Obama's new defense secretary!  From the July 11, 2011 Washington Post:
BAGHDAD — Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Monday appeared to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq as part of the war against al-Qaeda, an argument controversially made by the Bush administration but refuted by President Obama and many Democrats.
Panetta made his remarks during his his inaugural visit to Iraq as Pentagon chief. Speaking to about 100 soldiers at Camp Victory, the largest U.S. military installation in Baghdad, he said his primary goal as defense secretary was to defeat al-Qaeda worldwide.
“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.”
Remember when the dominant theme of Democrats was, "Bush lied, people died"?  Is Panetta an idiot?  Or is he actually admitting that there was a connection (a position that the Bush Administration did not take)?


    Maybe the press shouldn’t have blindly accepted partisan lies from their fellow leftwingers….

  2. this is a topic that ALWAYS brings out the true partisanship of the press

  3. So Bush's argument that the Iraq war was a means to get to Al Qaeda was "refuted" by Obama?
    Exactly what was the argument and evidence he used to "refute" anything? The fact that Panetta has made the same claims indicates that nothing was refuted, merely denied. (sigh) this is another battle in the war for better language leading to better thinking that George Orwell implied that we were losing in his "Newspeak" appendix to "1984"

  4. Neither.

    (Okay, he might be an idiot, but this doesn't show it.)

    I think he's repeating the - perfectly accurate - Bush Administration position that 9/11 was a "wake up call" (a catalyst, in other words) for dealing with international terrorism.

    Iraq's sponsorship of same was and is (historically speaking, that is) well established.

    I think the apparent "connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda" here is more that they're still there because AlQ took the rope-a-dope bait and decided to make opposing us in Iraq their losing fight.