The liberals *insist* that there are no al-queda in Iraq. Never have been, never will be. It's true because they said so. Duh.
Can somebody count all of the incorrect inferences and erroneous assumptions in this statement? I tried but I lost track....
Yep. I agree. You know that area was so corrupt. (Sadam's ruling)). Zargqawi is a leutenant of Osama's.
I think they insist there are no formal ties. There is probably al-queda in America but we don't go to war with ourself.
No, it is true because every reputable piece of intelligence that exists shows clearly that Saddam not only didn't have ties to Al Qaeda, but actively kept them (and all other militant Islamic groups) out by ruling with an iron fist.
And OBL is on record and on tape as saying that one of AQ's primary goals was the removal of Saddam from power.
Let's see... how can the liberals politicize this? Perhaps demand that Rumsfeld be fired? How about denounce the killing and then beg for money in the same email? Attack the President's post-war planning? Nah, those ideas have already been implemented. Eh, this story doesn't cast American troops in a bad light...they may as well ignore it.
Think they would have done it and videotaped it had the pictures from Abu Ghirab not been made public? Expect more of this kind of thing.
Look who is doing the politicizing! Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, the King of the Shills is at it again.
There weren't any Al Qaeda in Iraq before we occupied the country, but there sure as hell are a bunch of them there now. Thanks, Dubya. Your myopic, oil-driven war is costing us more and more lives everyday. Brilliant.
Two things: 1. The Al Queda folks did not just do this because of the prison abuse photos, but because they hate us and are too cowardly to fight us on a conventional level. It's nothing more than a excuse for their nefarious deed. They did it to Daniel Pearl, sans prison abuse photos. 2. Who is going to be the first to say Bush is responible for this? Just curious.
