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. But, but, don’t ya’ know BUSH LIED???

    /sarcasm off

    If any dem( except Lieberman) was in the WH, there’d be none of this “LIED” crap.

    Comment by Pame — April 27, 2007 @ 11:28 pm - April 27, 2007

  2. You fail to mention that he was a major in the Iraqi army in the 1980s and was in Afghanistan for 15 years since the 1990s. Let’s say that one more time just so everyone understands it – he hadn’t been part of the Iraqi army for around 20 years.

    Now with that understanding, you’re still saying that he was some key link to the Hussein government in the 2000s?

    Comment by Countervail — April 28, 2007 @ 12:01 am - April 28, 2007

  3. They won’t squirm. They will simply ignore it. They way they do with all facts that don’t jive with their agenda.

    Comment by imnohero — April 28, 2007 @ 12:30 am - April 28, 2007

  4. That’s the thing that gets me. The libs yawn when KSM is captured. They cared more about how he is treated. The guy organized the assault on America killing almost 3,000, and I’m supposed to worry that he was made to think he was being drowned?

    Screw THAT!

    This will be the same. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how this murderous bastard is treated and that’s all that will matter to them. No dobt the usual suspects here will rush to his defense.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 28, 2007 @ 1:41 am - April 28, 2007

  5. You highlight “a former major in Saddam’s army” and throw up some dates in the late 1990′s and the early 2000′s as evidence of Saddam being intimately involved with Iraq and thus a rationale for the administration tying the Saddam-to-Iraq link. Unfortunately your timeline doesn’t work. He rose to a rank of Major in Saddam’s army and no higher, but not because he wasn’t an effective soldier but because at that point he left Iraq to go fight in Afghanistan, and outside of Iraq is where he stayed until recently. All of that happened not in the 1990′s but in the 1980′s. Here http://tinyurl.com/33qes2 is a link to the State Deparment’s most wanted poster for this guy. Notice they say, ” Al-Hadi rose to the rank of Major in Saddam Hussein’s army before moving to Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union.”

    Comment by Former Republican — April 28, 2007 @ 8:34 am - April 28, 2007

  6. ps that should have been “al Qaeda-to-Iraq” link not “Saddam-to-Iraq” link.

    Comment by Former Republican — April 28, 2007 @ 8:36 am - April 28, 2007

  7. #2 SO TRUE!

    Comment by Good vs. Evil — April 28, 2007 @ 9:09 am - April 28, 2007

  8. #2 So True… the La La La Left because when there is a fact they don’t want to know about they cover their ears screaming LA LA LA LA until the fact messenger stops.

    Comment by Good vs. Evil — April 28, 2007 @ 9:11 am - April 28, 2007

  9. that you actually believe anything coming from bushco’s mouths demonstrates how gullible you are. this is merely a diversion from all the bad news…the surge is a failure, the cronyism continues and we’re spending $2 BILLION A WEEK on this immoral war.

    quick…let’s raise the security threat to orange!

    Comment by rightiswrong — April 28, 2007 @ 9:48 am - April 28, 2007

  10. My former comment seem to have disappeared, so I’ll just post the factoid on this guy one more time. According to the State Department Most Wanted information on this guy he left Saddam’s army in the 1980′s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and he had been doing terrorism outside of Iraq ever since. That means using this guy as evidence that Saddam had “operational relations” before and after 9/11 is unwarranted.

    Comment by Former Republican — April 28, 2007 @ 10:16 am - April 28, 2007

  11. RIW

    “In 1998, Pelosi stated that Saddam Hussein “has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology.”[41] After 2001, Pelosi has generally supported spending for national defense in areas of the War on Terrorism.[42] Pelosi voted for the USA Patriot Act,”

    NO GWB in the Oval office? HMMM

    Comment by Pamela — April 28, 2007 @ 11:57 am - April 28, 2007

  12. “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
    – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
    – President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

    “We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
    – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
    – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
    Letter to President Clinton.
    – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
    – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
    – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

    http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

    Comment by Pamela — April 28, 2007 @ 11:58 am - April 28, 2007

  13. Al-Iraqi was reportedly a major in Saddam’s army in the 1980s. Al-Qaeda didn’t even exist then. There is no evidence that he colluded with al-Qaeda while serving Saddam.

    Nice try.

    Comment by vaara — April 28, 2007 @ 12:21 pm - April 28, 2007

  14. A Qaeda was formed around 1988

    Before the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989 al-Qaeda was already beginning to place itself in opposition to the United States, United Kingdom, and their allies, specifically in their sending troops to Saudi Arabia in preparedness for ending the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Al-Qaeda says that both the U.S. and U.K. are oppressive toward Muslims, citing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, (“Iraq war”), the presence of military bases in several Islamic countries and U.S. support for Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict, when attempting to recruit people to their cause.

    http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10207

    Comment by Pamela — April 28, 2007 @ 12:39 pm - April 28, 2007

  15. Score so far: Pamela 3, lower-case-libtard-trolls 0.

    Sounds like MATCH, SET and GAME in (pardon the expression) STRAIGHT sets.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 28, 2007 @ 12:47 pm - April 28, 2007

  16. This still doesn’t prove that al-Iraqi was simultaneously a member of the Iraqi military, and an al-Qaeda operative, much less that there was “operational cooperation” between Saddam and the 9/11 plotters.

    And since when is al-Jazeera an authoritative source, anyway?

    Comment by vaara — April 28, 2007 @ 1:08 pm - April 28, 2007

  17. How in the world does this prove that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda???

    Comment by donovan — April 28, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - April 28, 2007

  18. Please, please explain how this proves a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

    Comment by Link — April 28, 2007 @ 2:06 pm - April 28, 2007

  19. 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.

    Is there no one that sees a problem with this? An Al Qaeda leader, a Sunni Fundamentalist, in Shiite Iran?? A Wahhabist, who, according to his faith, considers the Shiite sect as heretical and hence, considers Muslim Shiites as their sworn enemy?

    Comment by tontocal — April 28, 2007 @ 3:37 pm - April 28, 2007

  20. iamgod,

    no one would believe it even if Nancy Pelosi brought back evidence from her meetings in Damascus and Tehran on a sterling silver paltter on official DNC stationary with a wax seal made with of platninm.

    Comment by Pamela — April 28, 2007 @ 3:42 pm - April 28, 2007

  21. #10

    in 1989 al-Qaeda was already beginning to place itself in opposition to the United States, United Kingdom, and their allies, specifically in their sending troops to Saudi Arabia in preparedness for ending the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

    Boy, I knew that these Al Qaeda guys were good but I had no idea that they had such astounding ‘fortune teller’ abilities!

    They sent their operatives back into Saudi Arabia in anticipation of an invasion that had not yet taken place?

    Comment by tontocal — April 28, 2007 @ 3:44 pm - April 28, 2007

  22. #10

    Boy, I knew these Al-Qaeda guys were good but I had no idea they were that incredibly adept with respect to their abilities to prognosticate?

    They sent their forces back into Saudi Arabia in anticipation of an invasion of Kuwait that hadn’t even happened yet??

    Comment by surrendergeek — April 28, 2007 @ 3:48 pm - April 28, 2007

  23. Again: the facts in evidence do not support the theory that al-Iraqi was taking orders from Saddam Hussein during the time he was in al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    Besides, if his capture justifies the war, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia or Egypt? Both those countries also provided many fighters to the anti-Soviet muhajideen, and later the Taliban.

    Comment by vaara — April 28, 2007 @ 4:08 pm - April 28, 2007

  24. I think what rightiswrong is trying to say is “Don’t confuse me with facts. My mind is made up.”

    Comment by Robert — April 28, 2007 @ 6:36 pm - April 28, 2007

  25. #5 Confirms my belief that leftists believe 3000 slaughtered innocent Americans was a blip an aberation. Like one days auto accidents around the country. What’s the big deal. Some didn’t and still don’t connect the 6 previous terror attacks, realizing we finally had to respond and rain hell down on their asses. The most distressing thing about our final reaction to the terrorists for leftists, is it meant we had to divert attention from socialist programs. We spend way too much time worrying about security, safety, and not on wealth redistribution, green inniatiatives, and other communist ideals. I suspect that many of the lower case leftists in these blogs didn’t lose people on 9/11. And have few military in their families. The bottom line for me about leftists is they are simply selfish. This major attempt by our country doesn’t stack up to lowering their student loan interest rates, and providing free child breakfasts. They are selfish and horribly short sighted.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 28, 2007 @ 9:35 pm - April 28, 2007

  26. that you actually believe anything coming from bushco’s mouths demonstrates how gullible you are.

    That coming from the folks that gave us such gems as:

    *Kinkos military records

    *War for oil

    *2, no 3, no 4, no 6, no it was 3 million jobs lost (yeah that’s the ticket).

    *Whatever that document was called that supposedly proved Bush manipulated intelligence.

    *Bush controlled hurricane Katrina and blew up the levees

    etc. etc. etc.

    Let’s face it, there hasn’t been a thing the liberals have said in at least the past 7 years which has been true. If it were, you’d still hear about it. Rather, they milk it for all it’s worth and then forget about it when nobody buys it. That explains why the majority of the people in this country doesn’t trust the drive-by media anymore.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 28, 2007 @ 10:07 pm - April 28, 2007

  27. Besides, if his capture justifies the war, why have we not invaded Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

    If you have to ask at this point, you’re incapable of comprehending the obvious answer. It’s also a prime example of why liberals CAN’T BE TRUSTED to protect this country.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 28, 2007 @ 10:09 pm - April 28, 2007

  28. 9-11 happened on the conservative watch. they were inept then as they are obviously inept now.

    Comment by iamgod — April 28, 2007 @ 10:33 pm - April 28, 2007

  29. #20 – Your comments obviously point out that you are markie, whom the web owners have banned from this site. Why don’t you grow up and admit that you are WRONG, have always been WRONG and will continue to be WRONG each time you post???

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 28, 2007 @ 11:27 pm - April 28, 2007

  30. 9-11 happened on the conservative watch. they were inept then as they are obviously inept now.

    And Mir Aimal Kansi. The first WTC attack, USS Cole attack, Brooklyn Bridge shooting, Karachi Pakistan, OKC bombing, Amtrak Sunset Limited, Olympic Park Bombing, Empire State Building, Dar es Salaam & Nairobi etc. happened on a liberal’s watch. They collectively yawned, but they burned down those damn Branch Davidians.

    Lord BJ had us bend over and lube up for Osama bin Laden, but they showed those Waco zealots what “separation of church and state” is really about. That and they showed that little Cuban kid how compassionate they are. All that and we got 9/11 as our thanks.

    One other note, you don’t see any of “Bushco” stealing documents out of the National Archives for CYA purposes.

    iamgod, you may now shove it up left.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 29, 2007 @ 5:29 am - April 29, 2007

  31. I think it interesting that there are no dates in reference to when al-Iraqi was a major in Saddam’s army and an Al-Qaeda operative. He may have been a major in the 1980s, when the US was supporting Iraq’s murderous war against Iran (anyone else seen that footage of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand…priceless) and have joined Al Qaeda later. I mean, Timothy McVeigh was once a member of the US army, so that means..!

    As for the Demorats believing Saddam had WMD’s (or at least saying they thought he had them) what’s the big deal? The Democrats are almost as Right-wing as the Republicans,…their presidential favourite Clinton is pushing for a strike on Iran fer gawd’s sake!

    Comment by Dave — April 29, 2007 @ 8:26 am - April 29, 2007

  32. This is what you call “operational relations”? Painful fits of laughter overtake me…

    Comment by sean — April 29, 2007 @ 5:46 pm - April 29, 2007

  33. I think that Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi visited Disney at some point, too, totally and completely implicating Mickey Mouse as well, not to mention the Seven Dwarves.

    Comment by jimmy — April 29, 2007 @ 8:01 pm - April 29, 2007

  34. So the Democrat Governor of NJ’s SUV was not only going 95 miles an hour and he wasn’t wearing his seat belt. Now it comes to light the other motorist wasn’t at fault as originally reported. But the Governors SUV caused the accident with their high speed, flashing lights and irrratic driving. As they tried to make the meeting between Imus and the Rutkers womens basketball team. Then today, Harold Ford Jr, former Democrat candidate for Senate from Tenn’s, uncle is found guilty of bribery. Involving at least $55,000. His uncle was also a Democrat, and State Senator of Tennessee. The illegalities and stench of corruption in the Democrat Party is growing and becoming pretty routine at this point. Since none of em ever quit in disgrace or few end up in prison, there is no motivation for the Democrats to clean up their house.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — April 29, 2007 @ 10:08 pm - April 29, 2007

  35. I think that Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi visited Disney at some point, too, totally and completely implicating Mickey Mouse as well, not to mention the Seven Dwarves.

    Yeah. Explain to us how libs give a crap about national security?

    From GlobalSecurity.org:

    * Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi was one of al-Qaida’s most senior operatives and paramilitary commanders at the time of his capture in Fall 2006. He had been in direct communication with both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri; at one point, he served as al-Zawahiri’s caretaker.

    *He was in Afghanistan during the late 1990s. He commanded several training camps and functioned as the organization’s “internal operations chief.”

    * He commanded cross-border raids into Afghanistan (presumably from Pakistan) between 2002 and 2004. He also oversaw plots to assassinate Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf and an undisclosed U.N. official.

    * In particular, he led a rocket attack against U.S. forces in Afghanistan in Fall 2003.

    * In recent years, he has served as a senior deputy of Osama bin Laden monitoring events in Iraq; he has helped communicate between bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Iraq.

    * He also met with al-Qaeda operatives in Iran to exhort them to do more in Iraq and in Iran.

    * He served as a major in Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein before going to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    * Regarded as skilled, intelligent and respected al-Qaeda commander.

    * He was captured at an undisclosed location in 2006 while trying to reach Iraq. He was in CIA custody until he was turned over to the U.S. military and taken to Guantamamo Bay, Cuba, in April 2007.

    * The U.S. government offered a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to his capture.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 29, 2007 @ 11:54 pm - April 29, 2007

  36. dem corruption can’t hold a candle to repubican corruption.

    I agree. When their lapdogs in the media ignore it and their voters don’t hold them to the same (let alone any) standards, it doesn’t.

    You’ll note that Republicans step down from their positions and/or quit entirely. William Jefferson is still on the job and still on a committee. DiFi is still on the job as well as Chucky Schumer, Boxer, Reid, Pelosi, Patrick, Clinton, Menendez, Emanuel, Bayh, Kucinich, Conyers, Leahy, McDermott, etc.

    Not to mention the libs with ties to Abramoff such as:

    Murray, Rangel, Reid, Kennedy, Dorgan, Carson, John, Harkin, Breaux, Landrieu, Hoyer, Frank, Kildee, Baucus, Mikulski, Stabenow etc. etc. etc.

    You’re right. Dems don’t hold a candle to Republicans when nobody knows about it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am - April 30, 2007

  37. Crud

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2007 @ 12:04 am - April 30, 2007

  38. oh, the link between saddam and abd al-hadi al-iraqi is so fricken cyrstal clear. even drudge dropped it.

    Are you THAT retarded?

    even a third grader should know that abramoff wasn’t singing like a stuck pig, last fall, about his democratic buddies.

    Apparently you are. Even a ‘gloid Dean ball-licker knows that Abramoff did implicate liberals.

    A sample from The Blotter:

    (Reid the whole article)

    As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.

    Also:

    Sources close to the investigation say Abramoff has provided information on his dealings with and campaign contributions and gifts to “dozens of members of Congress and staff,” including what Abramoff has reportedly described as “six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators.”

    Shall I go on, or will you admit that you’re either ignorant or a lying sack now?

    Check and Mate®

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2007 @ 1:27 am - April 30, 2007

  39. (anyone else seen that footage of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand…priceless)

    Anybody else see the footage of Pelosi sucking up to ASSad? Priceless.

    How about the libs who suck up to Chavez? Priceless.

    Or the libs who still love “Uncle Joe” and admire trials in abstentia, or the Siberian gulags? Priceless.

    How about the libs who still swear Hiss’ innocence? Priceless.

    How about the libs who still love Castro? Priceless.

    How about the rich white libs who wear Che Guevara t-shirts? Priceless.

    How about the libs who gave their usual finger to the South Vietnamese and let their Communist buddies take over and let the killing fields begin? Priceless.

    Anybody else see that footage of John Kerry meeting with Victor Charlie? Priceless.

    Shall I go on?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2007 @ 2:49 am - April 30, 2007

  40. So steeped are our libs in their extra chromosomes, Dean’s balls and perverse hatred that they don’t even notice their masters on The Hill aren’t even doing their bidding. Allegedly, they got a “mandate” back in November from “the majority of the American people”, and yet they still won’t carry it out.

    So far, they’ve managed to suck up to the unions and are now sucking up to the trial lawyers, but none of their legislation has gone anywhere. The “First 100 Hours” has gone over like a wet fart in church and even the first 100 days were about as spectacular. They’ve managed to waste time and money on a meaningless show trial, not to mention the trees that had to be cut down for their subpoenas.

    Hell, they won’t even touch their old standby of gun control legislation for fear of pi$$ing off the “Blue Dogs” which are the only reason they got their pi$$ poor “majority”. They won’t even bother with their partial birth infanticide because too many of them, including gReid voted for opposing it. That, of course, was before he was against opposing it.

    Now comes the 2008 presidential election. Bush isn’t running, so they’ll actually have to take a stand on issues. They can’t hide like Pelosi & gReid did in 2006. We know the libs don’t give a sweet d*mn about 9/11 or national security. They, as well as their minions on this blog have made that abundantly clear. It’s sickening watching “Americans” defend those who would gladly saw their heads of with a rusty scimitar.

    Can we take up a collection to send our libs to Club Gitmo, or wherever, so they can defend the islamo-fascists far away from us? Can we get ourselves out of the toilet whirlpool they’ve placed themselves in? When the libs finally implode under the weight of their colossal failure, do we all have to go along?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2007 @ 5:28 am - April 30, 2007

  41. 37, Gene, unfortunately governors seem to think they are above the law when it comes to speeding. Christie Whitman admitted that her driver regularly drove at least 10 mph above the speed limit. And Rick Perry, while lt. governor of Texas, was pulled over and apparently said to the trooper, “Why don’t you just let us get on down the road.” I’ll have to try that next time I get pulled over.

    Yes, 95 mph is overly excessive, and stupid on Corzine’s part. He does get some points though for paying his hospital bills, and not giving us taxpayers the pleasure of paying for his error.

    Back to our regularly scheduled topic.

    Comment by Pat — April 30, 2007 @ 7:18 am - April 30, 2007

  42. #47 – Anyone still in elementary school is an intellect compared to you.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 9:47 am - April 30, 2007

  43. Meanwhile, the growing interference of Iran in Iraq’s affairs is getting dangerous. Read if you dare.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 9:50 am - April 30, 2007

  44. iamgod says that Tenet is calling the Veep a “dirty little pig”?

    No, that was Hollywood’s posterboi for radicalLeft activists, Alec Baldwin, and he was speaking about his 11 year old daughter.

    Anyone think “iamgod” at #50 meant to post as someone else? I mean, that’s a post a pro-Western, strong willed, American patriot might make… not iamgod. Then at 51 and 52… back in true form.

    It’s always fun to point out when the GayLeftBorg’s trick playing commenters here self destruct. LOL… try to at least stay in character, iamgod. You’re the radical AmericaBlaming, BushHating surrenderist GayLeftie.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 30, 2007 @ 11:23 am - April 30, 2007

  45. presidential medal of freedom winner Guy who got caught making up lies in his CYA book, George Tenet called Vice President Dick Cheney, “a dirty little pig”.

    There, fixed it.

    Comment by V the K — April 30, 2007 @ 11:24 am - April 30, 2007

  46. #53 – M-Matt, you are right about this one. Sounds like we have ourselves a flip-flop troll on our hands.

    Bruce/Dan – get a rope. Hang ‘em high. ;-)

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 11:49 am - April 30, 2007

  47. Getting back on topic, Michelle Malkin has the goods on how Iran is becoming more regressive in its treatment of women and Western tourists.

    You would think that the women’s issues would grab the attention of NOW, Code Pink and maybe the cast from “The View.” Right?

    (Crickets chirping)

    No, of course not. They are more concerned about bashing the Commander-in-Chief than women’s issues.

    Typical libtard hypocrites.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 11:53 am - April 30, 2007

  48. tenet must be another example of goergie’s ability to make correct decisions.

    Ummm…Tenet was a CLINTON appointee. Bush just decided not to get rid of him, probably for continuity’s sake; after all, unlike Democrats, who view the CIA as a place to put their pampered wives whose “covert” status was known in the 1990s, who used the US Embassy as her address while living abroad as a spy, and whose husbands went on super-ultra-secret missions in which they told everyone they met they were working for the US government and the CIA, Republicans DO see the CIA as something more than a paycheck for their party hacks and donors.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - April 30, 2007

  49. Reread posts #13-14, markie. Your talking points have been (SNAP!) dismissed.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 2:22 pm - April 30, 2007

  50. And of course, let’s not forget how the Dhimmicrat candidates applauded Saddam’s capture in the 2004 election, except for Howie Dean of course.

    The telling portion of this story is Gen. Clark’s quote at the end of the paragraph – that a loss in Iraq was a victory for al-Qaeda.

    Checkmate.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — April 30, 2007 @ 2:33 pm - April 30, 2007

  51. 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

  52. 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

  53. #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

  54. 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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. 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

  59. 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

  60. 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

  61. #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

  62. 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

  63. 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

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

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

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. (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

  69. 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

  70. 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

  71. #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

  72. 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

  73. #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

  74. 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

  75. 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

  76. 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

  77. 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

  78. 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

  79. #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

  80. 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

  81. 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

  82. #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

  83. 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

  84. 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

  85. #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

  86. 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

  87. 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

  88. 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

  89. 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

  90. #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

  91. 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

  92. 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

  93. 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

  94. 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

  95. 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

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

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

  97. 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

  98. 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

  99. #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

  100. 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.