Comments on: Good news about “Al Qaeda that doesn’t exist in Iraq”

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:32:25 +0000

The talk over Saddam Hussein is designed to divert your attention from the real threats and campaigns ongoing, Danny, such as MoveOn or Reid’s latest concoction. That and because people like to argue over the past rather than delve into the mysterious future, which they dislike precisely because of the unpredictability factor. Which, in end, means that their inability to predict the future or analyze trends also means they are unable to analyze history.

After all, both analysis of the past and the future require each other. The truth is that people want to discard classical learning and taking responsibility for the future, and still hold themselves up to a higher standard.

By: T.S.

T.S. — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:46:48 +0000

Pick a New Spot for the goalposts?

I hate sports metaphors, but if you must, how’s this: I’m siding with Truth.

Saying that al Qeada is in Iraq is the truth, for sure. But it’s disengenous to ignore WHY al Qeada is in Iraq. (In 2001 the State Department issued a map depicting al Qeada hot zones — and Iraq was 100% al Qeada free)

You can believe what you want to believe.

But I prefer the truth.

By: Mordechai

Mordechai — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:38:36 +0000

Saddam was up to his neck in involvement in the first WTC attack? BS!

The same goes for Zarqawi. He was in the Kurdish region helping Kurdish rebels at the time. Zarqawi was no friend of Saddam Hussein.

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 02:26:47 +0000

They weren’t called Al Qaeda, then, TS. They sported names such as Ansar-al-Islam. Same thugs, different gang colors. And, yes, TS, Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in involvement in the first WTC attack-an act of war, if there ever was one. Hussein was not going to be wished away.

By: Trimegistus

Trimegistus — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:45:52 +0000

TS:

So effin’ what? Saddam Hussein was in Iraq prior to, during, and immediately following 9/11. Saddam had verified contacts with AQ (Zarqawi) and moreover was one evil son of a bitch who needed removing.

Now pick a new spot for those goalposts and get to work. I’ll be up in the refreshment stand buying a corn dog.

By: Sam Francisco

Sam Francisco — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:00:06 +0000

You won’t find Al Qaeda in any of the Shiite provinces because the Shiites won’t tolerate them. You will find them in Sunni provinces because they are helping to fight the Americans.

As soon as we accepted the Sunni’s offer and started arming their militias Al Qaeda disappeared.

The bottom line is that unless they prove themselves useful to the iraqis, al qaeda will find no safe harbor in Iraq.

By: zhombre

zhombre — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:30:23 +0000

So? They are there now. One can argue we should not have invaded Iraq and deposed the Baathist regime however we invaded Iraq and deposed the Baathist regime and now we fight AQ. I’d like to see U.S. troops removed in significant numbers too but I also would like to see AQ decimated in large numbers.

By: T.S.

T.S. — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:18:00 +0000

According to official U.S documents, al Qeada was not in Iraq prior, during, or immediately following 9/11.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq cured that, however.

By: zhombre

zhombre — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 22:12:20 +0000

The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.
George S. Patton

By: SJBill

SJBill — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:57:45 +0000

I shed hardly a tear. They get their allocation of 12 six packs of Virgin “Lite” Beer at their next duty station. Too bad they can’t drink.