YOU need to head up the Log Cabineers. LOL.

“It wasn’t until long after Saddam was deposed that Zarqawi joined al Qaeda”

What Hitchens states:

“Mary Anne Weaver shows fairly convincingly that the two men did not get along… when Zarqawi sought the franchise to call his group “al-Qaida in Mesopotamia,” he was granted it with only a few admonitions.”

And just when was it granted? Why, it was just after he finally “finally paid bayat to Osama bin Laden” in October 2004. That’s long after the US invaded Iraq. Just as I said.

Regards,
Peter H.

Indeed. Ian also has overlooked what his comments do to his reasoning. Weaver: meet Hitchens.

How about a quote from the dead guy

O nation of Islam, you must know that the Shiite creed and Islam only meet as Jews and Christians meet under the name of the people of the book. The Shiites have distorted the Koran, insulted the prophet’s companions, stabbed the mothers of the faithful, repudiated the people of Islam and spilled their blood, committed great sins and engaged in all kinds of superstitions, falsehoods, and myths.

What? That the Iranian regime supports terrorists? Well, Duhhh. Does that mean we should invade them? With what, pray tell? After all, Operation Yellow Elephant doesn’t seem to be doing all that well http://tinyurl.com/coz2p . Perhaps if we hadn’t invaded Iraq, we’d be in a far stronger position to deal effectively with the Iranian regime.

As for Zarqawi and al Qaeda, the Atlantic article is pretty clear - when bin Laden and Zarqawi first met it was “loathing at first sight”. Nor for years would Zarqawi take an oath of allegiance to bin Laden. It wasn’t until October, 2004 - a year and a half after the US invaded Iraq - that Zarqawi finally “paid bayat to Osama bin Laden.” Thanks to Dear Leader for that alliance.

How so? Because she is a journalist for The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly along with having authored at least one book? Perhaps she is, but do you realize the Pandora’s box you are opening for your reasoning and argument?

If it isn’t true: your position is further exposed as ridiculous and false. If it is true: then Iran is not only a major sponsor of international terrorism, but a truly monstrous regime, one we should invade next. Bye now.

Here is the part where I admit that I said what I said, not only to make a point to the sane readers here about the essential hypocrisy and emptiness of your position, but for the “watch a train wreck” pleasure of seeing what distorted, hypocritical pretzel you would bend your mind into rather than ever admit a fragment of truth. And I have to say - You obliged me. Thanks

“One can only imagine how astonished al-Zarqawi must have been when Colin Powell named him as the crucial link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime. He was not even officially a part of al-Qaeda, and ever since he had left Afghanistan, his links had been not to Iraq but to Iran.

“We know Zarqawi better than he knows himself,” the high-level Jordanian intelligence official said. “And I can assure you that he never had any links to Saddam. Iran is quite a different matter. The Iranians have a policy: they want to control Iraq. And part of this policy has been to support Zarqawi, tactically but not strategically.”

So the points you tried to make are totally refuted by the facts.

“In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.”

Because that is exactly one of the times “the White House nixed plans to take Zarqawi out” that Ian wants people to feel bad about here.

So Ian - You would appear to be finally conceding that:

(1) Saddam did have al Qaeda in Northern Iraq, pre-Coalition invasion; and
(2) they had access to chemical WMD.

Or at the very least, admitting that that’s WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE SAID to U.S. officials in the run-up to Coalition invasion.

As you’d know, the Zarqawi feat wasn’t just him; also his staff, plus 17 simultaneous raids on other Al Qaeda Mesopotamia cells and 39 more the next day. Huge. Doesn’t shut down the Baathist / Saddam Diehard part of the insurgency - but, is a body blow to the al Qaeda portion of it.

Meanwhile, Osama is sitting in a cave in tribal Pakistan (if he is even alive still) doing nothing.

And what is Sen. Conrad’s reaction? To put down the whole effort by saying, in effect (or in political-speak), “Oh but they should have gotten Osama”.

That’s nutjob territory, sorry man. I mean, it’s what, oh I don’t know, raj would say?

You’ll undoubtedly be right at home.

As a matter of fact, yes.

Why would that be? After all, it was known through intelligence that Zarqawi and his allies were developing plans to use poison in terrorist attacks.

Gee Tin Foil Hat One, why don’t you tell us?

Why would she want to attend that convention? In DailyKos straw polls, she consistently gets in the very low single digits of support as a Presidential candidate. Of course, she’d be light years ahead of any Republican contender. But she is positioning herself to the right. The problem is no one believes it and the Dem base hates her for trying. While it would be nice to imagine the elevated blood pressure her candidacy would induce in all the wingnuts, I’m afraid it just isn’t going to happen.

Kinda sorry I didn’t go to YearlyKos - it would have been fun. Maybe next year.

Is his speculation any nuttier than Bruce’s speculation that Hidatha may be a hoax? After all, we do know for a fact that Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq in territory controlled by the Kurds and under our no-fly zone for some time prior to the invasion of Iraq. And we know the White House at least twice nixed plans to take him and his terrorist group out http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Why would that be? After all, it was known through intelligence that Zarqawi and his allies were developing plans to use poison in terrorist attacks.