Maybe I don't mention Saddam Hussein connections because it wasn't the point.

How about sticking to the points instead of slightly distorting them to facilitate excuses.

al Qaeda was not in Iraq until we invaded==False.
Zarqawi had no association with al Qaeda until 2004==False



You may also note I don't resort to Bush bashing..especially NOT when its bashing him for not attacking the al Qaeda in Iraq..you have denied repeatedly existed before we invaded!

Circular games.




...except Iraq. Right now we are fighitng al Qaeda in Iraq. Yanking the troops out for no reason and then saying you will fight al Qaeda with even less then whats there now is ridiculous.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

The neo-con camp hoped that Iraqis will welcome American invaders with open arms. But they are seen as the occupying force - so resistance comes naturally.

__________________
For some political humor, visit the following sites:

http://facethemonkey.com/,
http://facethemonkey.com/1378047C40DF34030E http://facethemonkey.com/1019747CB8F43D9356 http://facethemonkey.com/126347CB90FE5AB44
http://facethemonkey.com/1016547CB9174DC53E

Clowns...

Your Link:
It's a good article. It essentially points out the holes in the propoganda, as I've done above.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040900890.html

Maybe you don't mention Saddam Hussein connections because there were none.

How about not neglecting facts that aren't convenient for you political purposes.

al Qaeda's goal is to kill Americans==True
al Qaeda will follow American soldiers wherever they go==True
If American troops withdraw from Iraq, so will al-Qaeda==True
Sadam Hussein had no connections with al-Qaeda==True
There were no WMD's in Iraq==True
American's are not only fighting against al-Qaeda==True

What's wrong with Bush bashing? Why shouldn't I criticize the worst President in American History? Should I let things like: "Strategery" slide?

Should I let this slide?


Some American.

You've opened my eyes to the al-Qaeda base in Iraq, and I'm wondering why my president didn't attack them. Are there any other countries that have al-Qaeda bases that we should invade?

I don't think that our troops need to patrol the streets when we know where their bases are. Why are our soldiers walking through the streets, acting like police when we know where to find them?

This war has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. The only reason al-Qaeda inflicts casualties on Americans is because they are left exposed while policing another country. We should keep our troops in the bases, where they are safe, and carry out air strikes and special operations against al-Qaeda only.

__________________
"Masters of War" by Bob Dylan
"When a man assumes public trust, he should consider himself as public property"
-Thomas Jefferson
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein
"One man with courage is a majority"
-Thomas Jefferson

The fight against al-Qaeda (which I think is justifed self defense) has been hijacked by the Iraqi war which was fought under false pretences.

__________________
For some political humor, visit the following sites:

http://facethemonkey.com/,
http://facethemonkey.com/1378047C40DF34030E http://facethemonkey.com/1019747CB8F43D9356 http://facethemonkey.com/126347CB90FE5AB44
http://facethemonkey.com/1016547CB9174DC53E

Iraq had one connection with Al Qaeda: they're mostly Arabic.

That's why people call this a racist war. Because it is.

Al Qaida was not in the USA = false
President Bush attacked known Al Qaida and terrorist bases = false

Well at least you make it clear, you will not bash Bush for blocking attacks on known terrorists that resulted in the death of American soldiers.

Loyalty to Bush above the lives of our soldiers..

Much of the recent decrease in violence in Iraq has been due to the co-opting of much of the Sunni/Ba'athist opposition. Besides getting the opportunity to chase Al-Qaeda out of the neighborhoods, the Sunnis have received direct monies and weapons from the United States, and permission to receive more from sources like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
I saw a recent estimate that put the American aid, much of it military, at 250 million dollars.

This makes sense in the short term, as resistance to the occupation drops and the Sunnis feel more secure in a Shia-dominated Iraq. However, I truly doubt that the Sunnis will never use their re-armed militias against the Shia when the power-sharing arrangement inevitably breaks down after U.S. forces have left Iraq. In effect, we are guaranteeing that there will eventually be a large scale armed conflict or even a civil war, as the Shia have several well-armed militias of their own. The army will be of no help, as only one brigade is a mixed one, the rest being only Kurd, only Sunni Arab or only Shia Arab.

This strikes me as typical of all our thinking on Iraq: short-term gain for long-term pain.

Nuff Said.


E.Pluribus Unum

__________________
people of power have NO good will and people of good will have NO power.

Please tell us how al qaeda is different in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq? I can't wait to hear this explaination.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.