Gay Patriot Header Image

High Ranking Al-Qaeda Leader Captured,Was In Saddam’s Regime AND al-Qaeda Before 2003 Invasion

Well, this completely shatters the lie that the War in Iraq has “nothing to do with al-Qaeda.” 

The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.

Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.

Abd al-Hadi, 45, was regarded as one of al-Qaeda’s most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders. Senior counter-terrorism sources told The Times that he was the man who, in 2003, identified Britain as the key battleground for exporting al-Qaeda’s holy war to Europe.

He added that he was a key al-Qaeda paramilitary leader in Afghanistan in the late 1990s, and between 2002 and 2004 led efforts to attack US forces in Afghanistan with terrorist units based in Pakistan. 

How do the fact-dodging America Haters squirm out of this one?  Apparently there were operational relations between Saddam’s military and al-Qaeda before and after September 11, 2001.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

100 Comments

  1. And as far as al-Iraqi goes, it is funny how all the dots seem to be connected with his capture and arrest. You know, those dots that libtards always deny are connected, even though we know that they are.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - April 30, 2007

  2. Liberal Democrats fell all over themselves to have a debate on Iraq before the invasion. They wanted to go on record as supportive. They expected a slam dunk, and our military didn’t disappoint, routing the Iraqi military in record time. Now that the post victory reconstitution of the country has proven harder and more complicated than expected, it’s the liberal Democrats who back off and carp about how messed up things got. Typical of Dems, they’re with you when things are easy, they run and hide when there is tough going. These are not the people you want in charge when terrorists are trying to kill your mother, sister and daughter.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 30, 2007 @ 3:09 pm - April 30, 2007

  3. #60 There were 6 practice attacks prior to 9/11 that happened on the Democrats watch. Bin Laden said 9/11 took years of planning. Clinton years. Bill and Hill have to live with that.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 30, 2007 @ 3:11 pm - April 30, 2007

  4. iamgod writes: “… downstate troll”.

    Gee, that was a favorite term of another Michigander… markie… from the DemocratLeft laden land of northern Michigan. Now it’s “iamgod”? How fitting from an atheist and HateMonger.

    Nice to have you back under a different guise, there.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 30, 2007 @ 3:11 pm - April 30, 2007

  5. iamgod writes: “downstate troll”

    Hmmm… a banned commenter here by the name of markie was fond of using that phrase… it’s what someone of inferior intellect in Democrat laden land of Michigan’s North Country calls someone from the “FlatLands”.

    Bruce, I think we got a markie alert here… heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee’s back.

    markie, it’s not that you’re a threat to anyone… it’s that you’re a nuisance to all.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 30, 2007 @ 3:15 pm - April 30, 2007

  6. Yawn. Another pathetic and desperate attempt to link al Qaeda and Saddam. The problem is the guy left Iraq in the 1980’s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Some of you may remember those years when Saddam was St. Reagan’s bff and Osama was supported by the CIA. Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me if al-Hadi was involved with the CIA too. Maybe there’s even a pic of him glad-handing Rummy! It’s hilarious to see all the conservative lemmings rush to embrace this latest “proof” that they aren’t totally delusional. Unfortunately for them, it just shows them to be delusional and desperate.

    Comment by Ian — April 30, 2007 @ 5:03 pm - April 30, 2007

  7. Do you guys think that it’s one or two high school students…the lower case buds? Maybe trying to accumulate comments in a blog for like a term paper or little school newspaper?

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 30, 2007 @ 8:45 pm - April 30, 2007

  8. oh, that’s why cheney is still vp. i get it. oh, how stupid of me.

    You said it. I can quote you on that, right?

    9-11 happened on the conservative watch. they were inept then as they are obviously inept now….

    If no attacks since then is inept, then thank God for ineptitude! However, liberals celebrate real ineptitude like ignoring the frist WTC attack, the Brooklyn Bridge shooting, Mir Aimal Kansi, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on the embassies in Dar es Salaam & Nairobi, the Empire State Building shootings, the consulate employees killed in Karachi etc.

    and Osama was supported by the CIA.

    More liberal douchebaggery with no basis in fact or reality, but merely just because you repeat it often. I’m sure the CIA and bin Laden would be interested in any evidence you might have. BTW, why is it that bin Laden and Zawahri sound exactly like our liberals?

    Yawn. Same ol’ tired, worn out liberal BS based in desperation. How pathetic.

    Maybe there’s even a pic of him glad-handing Rummy!

    I doubt you’ll find a pic of him kissing Arafat’s wife, though. Nor will you find him referring to a Jew as “Fcuking Jew Bastard!”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 1, 2007 @ 2:18 am - May 1, 2007

  9. Obviously IgnoAndNaus is sticking to his lefty talking points about “Bush lied,” “no link with al-Qaeda,” ad nauseum.

    Let me clarify the facts of the matter for those who may have taken the short yellow bus to school:

    The Bush administration did not “lie” about Saddam’s WMDs. They acted on intelligence that may have been faulty, yes, but they did not act on “lies.”

    As Tenet says in his book and in his many interviews in the MSM: “We wrote what we believed, we stayed true to it.”

    But, as the Drive-By Media gives Tenet the room to tell his story, the focus is on Tenet and not on the Administration like it was during the many “Bush lied” stories. And that is because they wish to present Tenet as the “honest” guy who was ignored by the President…. even though he wasn’t.

    So, on one hand “Bush lied” about WMDs, yet on the other Tenet acted on the best known info available at the time.

    Well, it seems to make perfect sense that if Tenet was acting on information that they were all sure was quite correct at the time, then Bush did not “lie” when using that very same information, right?

    Let’s not forget that besides US intelligence, the agencies from the UK, France and even Russia had said the same thing – Saddam had the capability of creating a nuclear device and had hidden WMDs all over the region.

    So if four people are saying “It will rain tomorrow,” but one person says “it will be sunny,” who will the majority believe?

    King me.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2007 @ 10:10 am - May 1, 2007

  10. Yeah, Bush lied about WMD so he could start a war, but then he just plum forgot to arrange it to be sure that WMD would be discovered.

    You not only had to ride the short bus to school to believe that, you had to wear a crash helmet and bring a change of pants.

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2007 @ 10:38 am - May 1, 2007

  11. #72:

    Yeah, Bush lied about WMD so he could start a war, but then he just plum forgot to arrange it to be sure that WMD would be discovered.

    is a poll on what should be done with the glorious “Mission Accomplished” banner. More than half think it should go on display in the Codpiece’s Presidential Library.

    Comment by Ian — May 1, 2007 @ 4:06 pm - May 1, 2007

  12. Some of my comment was missing so here it is again

    #72:

    Yeah, Bush lied about WMD so he could start a war, but then he just plum forgot to arrange it to be sure that WMD would be discovered.

    Comment by Ian — May 1, 2007 @ 4:10 pm - May 1, 2007

  13. Part of my comment was missing so here it is again

    #72:

    Yeah, Bush lied about WMD so he could start a war, but then he just plum forgot to arrange it to be sure that WMD would be discovered.

    Comment by Ian — May 1, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - May 1, 2007

  14. Doesnt anyone remember? Its only true if a Democrat says it.

    Comment by Phil — May 1, 2007 @ 4:21 pm - May 1, 2007

  15. I thought the “codpiece” was in the Clinton Presidential Library & Massage Parlor in Arkansas.

    Right there next to the stained blue dress.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 1, 2007 @ 4:28 pm - May 1, 2007

  16. ian, they are losers, they like being tossed under the bus , again and again and again and again….

    Comment by godiam — May 1, 2007 @ 4:43 pm - May 1, 2007

  17. Great, now Ian’s being retarded in stereo.

    Anyway, the MA banner wasn’t for Bush, it was for the men and the women of the Abraham Lincoln, but, like a typical leftie, Ian just wants to spit on the military and belittle their accomplishments. Just like Harry Pelosi and Nancy GReid.

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2007 @ 6:22 pm - May 1, 2007

  18. (The transposition of names was deliberate. I am sure that was obvious to most, but many of our left-wing friends are a little slow.)

    Comment by V the K — May 1, 2007 @ 6:25 pm - May 1, 2007

  19. Make a deal with the leftists….we’ll get out of Iraq a year after we get out of Bosnia. Come on that’s fair. hehe Or don’t the high school students know we are still in Clinton’s war in Bosnia and Kosovo. Study up there will be a test soon.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 1, 2007 @ 8:51 pm - May 1, 2007

  20. Leftists don’t get the Lincoln banner because they aren’t familiar with giving our fighting men and women a pat on the back for a job well done. President Bush’s speech that day on the carrier was an amazing tribute to them, the warriors. the Democrats can mock it. The Republicans will continue to get 80% of the military vote.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 1, 2007 @ 8:55 pm - May 1, 2007

  21. #81:

    we’ll get out of Iraq a year after we get out of Bosnia.

    Since the US has had no troops in Bosnia for a couple of years, we’ll be counting on your full support for Cindy Sheehan’s call to bring our troops home from Iraq now

    Comment by Ian — May 1, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - May 1, 2007

  22. bzzzz wrong. You’re going to fail your exams. WaPost reports there are still 150 American troops in Bosnia assisting in defense reforms. hehe. You aren’t going to graduate to 10th grade without studying up.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 1, 2007 @ 10:19 pm - May 1, 2007

  23. #84:

    WaPost reports

    Got a link? Probably the article from 2004. The US “troops” are gone from Bosnia. But hey, you want 150 US advisors left in Iraq to assist in “defense reforms”, I’m cool with that. But bring the rest home. NOW!

    Comment by Ian — May 1, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - May 1, 2007

  24. Great, now Ian’s being retarded in stereo.

    Do you have any IDEA what it feels like having Jack Daniel’s come out of your nose???

    😉

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 2, 2007 @ 2:27 am - May 2, 2007

  25. Unfortunately, Ian really blundered into this one.

    First details:

    About 1,700 U.S. troops — active duty, Guard and Reserve from around the country — are deployed to Kosovo, with most serving as part of the NATO peacekeeping force. Many have made several deployments overseas.

    Notice the point of the article — that these soldiers are still engaged in combat, nine years after the fact.

    Or this interesting bit:

    There are approximately 16,500 NATO troops in Kosovo.

    For the record, there are just over 30,000 troops, counting the 17,000 or so that the US provides, in all of Afghanistan — meaning that the other NATO members have the same or fewer troops in Afghanistan as they do in Kosovo.

    And, more interestingly, that NATO number is just as of last fall, when NATO doubled the number of troops it had in Afghanistan.

    Relative to Bosnia, what leftist Ian ignores is the fact that the first deployment of troops was just after the 1995 war — which means that US troops were in Bosnia for at least a decade.

    And what’s really funny, puppet Ian, is that you insisted we had to put combat troops into harm’s way to stop genocide; after all, Slobodan Milosevic had exactly naught in the way of weapons of mass destruction, and zero capacity as Democrats measure it to strike the United States. But you and yours scream about using combat troops to eliminate someone whose sustained genocide and crimes made Milosevic look like a piker, who had already invaded and continued to threaten countries around him, who was paying off the European and UN bureaucracies to ignore him, who was directly funding and supporting terrorist attacks, and was building banned weapons in complete and utter defiance of numerous UN resolutions.

    And then you insist that you want to fight in Afghanistan. What a joke; you won’t even make your leftist allies fight there. Instead, you want us to all join Cindy Sheehan’s call for a complete military pullout from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2007 @ 2:44 am - May 2, 2007

  26. And just to make sure, here’s Democrat Party spokesperson, and Ian’s cited reference as being who he supports, Cindy Sheehan, to tell us what the Democrat Party really believes and supports:

    MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

    SHEEHAN: Yes.

    MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

    SHEEHAN: I don‘t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We‘re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we‘re saying. But they‘re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

    MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al Qaeda which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

    SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

    MATTHEWS: But that‘s where they were being harbored. That‘s where they were headquartered. Shouldn‘t we go after their headquarters? Doesn‘t that make sense?

    SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. And I believe that you don‘t send in—and I‘m not a strategist. I‘m not a military strategist. But I‘m seeing that we‘re sending our ground troop in to invade countries where the entire country wasn‘t the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we‘re looking for a select group of people in that country?

    So I believe that our troops should be brought home out of both places where we‘re obviously not having any success in Afghanistan.

    There you have it, folks. Ian is lying when he claims Dems want to fight terrorists and support the fighting in Afghanistan; Cindy Sheehan makes it clear that the Democrat Party supports a complete, total, and immediate pullout from Afghanistan.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2007 @ 2:49 am - May 2, 2007

  27. Let’s check in with another one of Ian’s clean and ethical Democrat angels:

    It appears Sen. Feinstein was up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in the slammer. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a minor leaguer and a lot dumber than his state’s senior senator.

    Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, usually focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position. Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”

    And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”

    But of course, since she’s a Democrat, it’s okay.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2007 @ 8:08 am - May 2, 2007

  28. Sounds like IgnoAndNaus got his clock cleaned again.

    BTW – looks like #78 just can’t leave us alone. What else is new?

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2007 @ 10:20 am - May 2, 2007

  29. #87:

    Ian really blundered into this one.

    Immediately after which NDT blathers on about Kosovo. here’s the original comment in #81 to which I responded :

    Make a deal with the leftists….we’ll get out of Iraq a year after we get out of Bosnia.

    You get that NDT. Bosnia. Not Kosovo, not Timbuktu, not Wingnuttia (also known as Moronistan) but Bosnia. Here, I’ll spell it out for you: B-O-S-N-I-A. And we don’t have “troops” there any more. And no, a few officers assigned to NATO support (www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03694341.htm) are not troops in any meaningful sense of the word. But, magnanimous gentleman that I am, I’ll let you keep a few officers in Iraq for support services just as we have in Bosnia. But bring the rest of our forces home now.

    Comment by Ian — May 2, 2007 @ 10:51 am - May 2, 2007

  30. And while we’re at it, let’s recall all the firefighters who are battling the wildfire in Georgia. Fighting fires is too dangerous, those firefighters should be home with their families.

    And I’m sure the fires will burn themselves out eventually anyway. It’s really not our place to interfere.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2007 @ 11:20 am - May 2, 2007

  31. Renowned Constititutional scholar in #90:

    Sounds like IgnoAndNaus got his clock cleaned again.

    Oh, Petie, there you go again fantasizing about me again. This time apparently you want to clean my “clock.” Next, you’ll be asking me how “massive” it is. LOL!

    Comment by Ian — May 2, 2007 @ 11:28 am - May 2, 2007

  32. #92:

    let’s recall all the firefighters who are battling the wildfire in Georgia.

    Well, if the fire chief had deliberately started that wildfire, he’d be up on criminal charges by now.

    Comment by Ian — May 2, 2007 @ 11:30 am - May 2, 2007

  33. As Ian waves his arms desperately to distract from Diane Feinstein’s corruption, Air Pelosi becomes the second most popular politician in Syria. (The country allied with Iran in murdering our soldiers.)

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2007 @ 11:40 am - May 2, 2007

  34. IgnoAndNaus, you are a legend in your own mind. Be very well aware that we are all cognizant of your “shortcomings.”

    Touche.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 2, 2007 @ 12:28 pm - May 2, 2007

  35. #95:

    waves his arms desperately to distract from Diane Feinstein’s corruption

    Let’s see here: the discussion is US troop levels in Bosnia. Out of the blue, you bring up some supposed “corruption” on the part of Dianne Feinstein. Now who did you claim was trying to “distract?”

    Comment by Ian — May 2, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - May 2, 2007

  36. Unfortunately, Ian, regardless of your attempts to make it otherwise, there are three problems; you had no problem with maintaining combat troops in Bosnia for ten years, you had no problem with CONTINUING to maintain combat troops in Kosovo for this many years, and you support complete withdrawals from BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq.

    That is because you and your entire party consider Kosovo and Bosnia to be greater strategic dangers to the United States than both Afghanistan and Iraq.

    That demonstrates completely and convincingly that you and your fellow Democrats are totally unfit to either make military decisions or to protect this country.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2007 @ 12:46 pm - May 2, 2007

  37. I love debating with Leftists… every topic is like 10 years old and current events dont exists.

    Comment by Vince P — May 2, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - May 2, 2007

  38. And also, Ian, this adds to your list of hypocrisies concerning Democrat conduct, including your support of Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finance fraud and her breaking her own demands that anyone who committed campaign finance fraud immediately resign from Congress.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 2, 2007 @ 12:48 pm - May 2, 2007

  39. Hey, at least when Air Pelosi is committing campaign fraud, she’s not over in the middle east playing patty cake with the kind of people who say things like this:

    “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet, defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.”

    The People Air Pelosi and Herry GReid are oh-so-eager to surrender to.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2007 @ 3:19 pm - May 2, 2007

  40. #98:

    Unfortunately, Ian, regardless of your attempts to make it otherwise, there are three problems

    No, there’s only one problem: your poor reading comprehension coupled with desperation. Gene brought up Bosnia and presented a most attractive deal. I accepted that deal and now the rest of the usual suspects are frantic about it. Tough.

    As for the US efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Europeans are shouldering most of that burden and have for some time. If US involvement in those two locations was so misguided, I’m sure your Dear Leader would have ended it as soon as he was inaugurated in 2001.

    Comment by Ian — May 2, 2007 @ 7:51 pm - May 2, 2007

  41. Ian I’m glad you paired Bosnia and Kosovo because most people do. And I’m glad you agree we still have troops there. This isn’t personal. Many of us are just trying to point out the near hysterical lefts illogical position in keeping America safe. What exactly do you think would happen to world oil prices if we left Iraq next week. And it split into 5 warring parts? Iran (Shiia), Saudi Arabia(Sunni), Syria (Bathist)would become involved immediately. The free flow of oil from there would probably cease for monthsa probably years. I think there was ample reason to take out the thug and murderer Sadaam. You don’t. But today…the position of the left is to leave. And whatever happens happens. Oil is the life blood of western economies. Leftists may hate that, but it’s the real world. If the mid east blows up, the USA, EU, South America will have $150 barrel oil and $6 a gallon gasoline in America for a year, possibly two. At that point the effect on the poor in the west will be devestating. Can you imagine the layoffs and unemployment that would follow. An interesting point also needs to be made. The Democrats will not leave the middle east. Under their watch they will not allow the region to become destabilized because of the reasons stated above. That is why all this back and forth, is just politics. A majority of Democrat elected representatives know what I say is true. If you had a Dem President and the present Dem Congress they would not be leaving Iraq. We would be leaving behind 50% of the oil required for our economy. Because the whole region would blow up. Now say what you will about America ending Sadaams madness. For 7 years the terrorists have been on the defensive and the free flow of oil has been maintained.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 2, 2007 @ 9:15 pm - May 2, 2007

  42. If US involvement in those two locations was so misguided, I’m sure your Dear Leader would have ended it as soon as he was inaugurated in 2001.

    Personally, I had, have, and presumably will have no problem with us having troops in either location. After all, their actions put an end to genocide and the rule of ruthless and hateful dictators, even though there is no way Bosnia and Kosovo could be considered “strategic” to the United States in a military sense.

    The problems come when leftists like Ian try to explain why they had to intervene militarily in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop the genocide and abuses…..but fought tooth and nail to stop us from intervening with someone who was far worse in both respects AND had the capability to harm the US and its strategic interests.

    The answer boils down to two things; racism on the part of Democrats towards the people of Iraq and a singular willingness on their part to dance to the tunes being called by bribed bureaucrats in the UN and Europe for whom billions of dollars would vanish if Saddam did.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 3, 2007 @ 12:46 am - May 3, 2007

  43. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

    Who’s we? Does she have a turd in her pocket? There was a consensus that Iraq did AND posed a threat to America and her interests.

    No, there’s only one problem: your poor reading comprehension coupled with desperation.

    I call shenanigans.

    Clearly Ian didn’t read what NDT posted.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 3, 2007 @ 1:16 am - May 3, 2007

  44. are you just fatigued arguing about 2002,2003 with these Rainmen… i cant even bring myself to type one word about the start of war without wanting to just cry from the uselessness of it.

    well these idiots please go to freakin kmart already and get underwear.

    Comment by Vince P — May 3, 2007 @ 1:21 am - May 3, 2007

  45. For what it’s worth:

    I always thought the troops which were in Bosnia/Kosovo were primarily UN troops, not US troops. Wasn’t that Slick Willie’s plan all along – to have American troops fighting under the banner of the UN and not the US flag? (Shudder.)

    If the troops there are UN troops, I don’t think we have the jurisdiction over them to “pull them out” in this case. Besides, they’ve been there for almost 10 years. You would think they’d have finished the job by now.

    But then again, we’ve seen how “effective” UN troops are when it comes to fighting (note Exhibit A – Hezbollah’s war on Israel last summer). They aren’t exactly a platoon that would make Iran’s leader I’mADinnerJacket quake in his boots.

    I should also add that UN troops, besides being such a model of military effectiveness (yeah, right), have their own woes when it comes to discipline. Just ask those young girls who were raped by UN forces. Talk about irony – they were hurting the ones they were trying to defend. But you don’t see the Drive-By Media reporting it as much as they did the alleged atrocities in Haditha and Abu Ghraib. It doesn’t fit their “America is bad” template.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — May 3, 2007 @ 12:01 pm - May 3, 2007

  46. How is The World War Three? Are we winning it yet?

    Comment by sean — May 4, 2007 @ 12:49 am - May 4, 2007

  47. Not if the Democrats have anything to say about it, uncapitalized one.

    Comment by V the K — May 4, 2007 @ 8:43 am - May 4, 2007

  48. sean:

    If it was up to you, no. You would be happy about it too.

    Comment by Vince P — May 4, 2007 @ 2:11 pm - May 4, 2007

  49. #103: I won’t deny that there’s a risk for further chaos if the US extricates itself from the mess in Iraq. But not everyone shares your dire view. However, you can’t get around the fact that the US is simply never going to commit the forces required to pacify Iraq in anything approaching a reasonable time-frame. What you are hoping for is a miracle and judging by the dismal track record of Bushco’s occupation of Iraq, that seems incredibly naive to me. I think it’s especially clear that the position of al Qaeda in Iraq would deteriorate dramatically were we to leave. No doubt at least a significant chunk of Iraq would wind up fairly cozy with Iran but if we engage Iran, that may not be as bad as it sounds.

    Comment by Ian — May 4, 2007 @ 4:45 pm - May 4, 2007

  50. Your ally just made your position clear, Ian.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 5, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - May 5, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.