CIA and Al Qaeda On the Same Page

Both agree that Al Qaeda is getting their asses kicked, in Iraq and around the world. Where would we (the free world) be today if Bush had accepted the findings of James Baker and Lee Hamilton? Where would we be if he had listened to the democrats and redeployed? That would have been the politically expedient thing to do, but it would not have been the right thing. The list of mistakes this administration has made in Iraq is long and had tragic consequences. In the end however, it is their refusal to walk away and hand victory to Al Qaeda that will be their lasting legacy.

History will judge George W. Bush a lot better than we do today.

The “Washington Post
U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
Group Is Facing Setbacks Globally, CIA Chief Says

Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaeda, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda’s allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group’s core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

Al Qaeda Discusses Losing Iraq

Al Qaeda web sites are making a lot of noise about “why we lost in Iraq.” Western intelligence agencies are fascinated by the statistics being posted in several of these Arab language sites. Not the kind of stuff you read about in the Western media. According to al Qaeda, their collapse in Iraq was steep and catastrophic. According to their stats, in late 2006, al Qaeda was responsible for 60 percent of the terrorist attacks, and nearly all the ones that involved killing a lot of civilians. The rest of the violence was carried out by Iraqi Sunni Arab groups, who were trying in vain to scare the Americans out of the country.

Today, al Qaeda has been shattered, with most of its leadership and foot soldiers dead, captured or moved from Iraq. As a result, al Qaeda attacks have declined more than 90 percent. Worse, most of their Iraqi Sunni Arab allies have turned on them, or simply quit. This “betrayal” is handled carefully on the terrorist web sites, for it is seen as both shameful, and perhaps recoverable.

And who do the democrats see as being responsible for this progress? The US military? The Iraqi Army? Nope. It is due to the “goodwill of the Iranians”. Seriously. That comment comes from the person third in line to the presidency, the leader of congressional Democrats, the dis-honorable Nancy Pelosi,

Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians – they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities – the Iranians.

Let that sink in, “the goodwill of the Iranians”. Are Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama the right people to take over the war on terror with Al Qaeda on the ropes? Uncle Jimbo, retired Special Operations Master Sergeant, sure doesn’t think so,

UPDATE: Obama bitterly clinging to an outdated storyline about the war. Heh.