« one one hand there's my kids and on the other, there's this silo in Iraq... | Main | because i had seven spare minutes last night »

You don't say....

Raid on Iraqi Militant Group Indicates Ties to al-Qaida but Leadership on the Run to Iran.

I am shocked and appalled! Inconceivable!

Eventually, everything evil and sinister about Iraq will come to light and the No Blood For Oil loudmouths can shrink back under the rocks from whence the came.

Comments

Sadly I predict that everything evil and sinister about Iraq will come to light and the "No Blood For Oil" troglodytes will be completely unmoved and will continue to hold protests saying "Bush=Hitler", "Selected not Elected" and "We support our troops when they shoot their officers".

See for the slimy IndyMedia, anti-war, A.N.S.W.E.R. types there isn't enough evidence in the world to convince them we're right. Their's is a special kind of dysfunctional stupidity, the kind that takes otherwise educated people and makes them into raving freaks who equate driving an SUV with terrorism, criticism of stupidity as censorship, and a 40+ nation U.S. led coalition as unilateral action by a cowboy in the whitehouse.

Nope, we could find home films of Saddam, the gang yukking it up as they dropped baby puppies into a chipper-shredder, tested mustard gas on Kurdish refugees and talked about their plans to create a whole bunch of nuclear bombs to give to Al Qeada just so they could wipe out cities in the U.S. and no one would say boo.

Well, that's not exactly true. PETA would get really pissed about the puppies.

Sheesh, what a bunch of useless fucks.

I was trying to research the V for VICTORY SIGN that was SO POPULAR after Hitler was defeated. The Sign is being MISUSED by the so called peace fanatics. If you can find a reference for me.. PLEASE post it.
I have just finished a HOT email to ABC news.. Tonite on a ABC News Special hosted by Peter Jennings.. they kept giving us THEIR opinions.. I guess they think we are not smart enough to UNDERSTAND what we just saw. Several of the NEWS reporters , as they call themselves.. put the news in a way that it ended up .. POOR Hussein.. In fact.. LYNN SHERER.. Made the comment.. You have to ADMIRE HUSSEIN.. WHAT????????? For what???? Yes i took the comment out of context but SHE should have NEVER made the comment in the first place.. I think she should be sacked JUST LIKE PAUL ARNETTE for making comments.. and not just giving the news.
thank you for let me use my soap box here. It isnt all i want to say, but there is not enought time for me to tell you what i think of our TRAITORS leading the Peace parades.
Thank you.
PJ

The "V" symbol originated, I believe, with Winston Churchill, during the most desperate days of WWII. It was adopted by the US and often appeared on newsreel and military training films. Conveniently, the "V" in International Morse Code is "dit-dit-dit-dah," which is what the opening of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony sounds like, so that was also played often.

More than you wanted to know, I bet. In any event, it's really inappropriate for use as it's now being used....

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means....

Let me see, Scuds missile that didn't exist are fired in Kuwailt, chemical suits to prepare for use of weapons the do not exist and now we have terrorist in camps that supposely did not exist. Sounds like Bush and Blair are three for three.

'preach it!'

Reposts entry to slashdot anti-war hippies

After reading about the al-Qaida connection on Sunday I had to ask myself what would the minimum credible standard be for connecting al-Qaida to Iraq. Because the group that was connected was reported as a small band of kurdish muslim extremists near the Iranian border, and they were suspected of harboring al-Qaida members after they fled Afghanistan. They were also reported to have gained support from Iran moreso than Iraq, and there were no known links to Hussein (they've since fled into Iran). US Intelligence agencies reported the links "tenuous at best".

While I would say that any link we find is a good link, if this is the standard, we're going to have a long long list of countries to invade - basically any country in which a cell can be found (or a phone book containing a number of someone in a cell) could be accused of having ties or "harboring". But actually, I wasn't surprised at all. These are the kinds of connections I expect. Official, systematic connections between al-Q and the Iraqi government on the other hand, that would go a long way towards convincing people - even intelligent people who suffer from dysfunctional stupidity. (by the way, I have to disagree with PJ, I don't think leading a peace parade makes one a trader - there's a large difference between demonstrating a belief, and taking action against one's country).

Exactly. If you locate a tiny band of Americans with links to Al-Qaeda will you start shooting yourselves? Militia groups exist everywhere, and don't represent the government.

tom: it's not certain that there were scuds fired at Kuwait. More probably they were Al Samud missiles, see also Saddam Fired Banned Missiles?

you keep using that word... i do not think it means what you think it means.

Yay for people who get Princess Bride references!

"and a 40+ nation U.S. led coalition as unilateral"

Actually, the 40+ includes dictatorships similar of Saddam's, as we both know. This coalition contains the English-speaking part of the democratic world exclusively. In Spain for instance, unaffected by the war-hysteria of the english-speaking massmedia consequently polls show over 75% of the populus is Anti-War. Therefore Spain could never afford to send troops and really participate in the campaign. (Not that it mattered.)

It's also important to note that Brittain jumped on the bandwagon in hope of a much needed peaceful Middle-East solution, for which the disarmament of Iraq is essential. Do we see the shift in the US policy towards Israel? (Who by the way ignored UN resolutions one after the other much like Saddam) Maybe. Bush was the first president to openly speak about a 'two state solution', but failed to comment on the continuing attrocities against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza. It's a mistake, especially considering that Bush couldn't get important Arab countries liike Egypt in the coalition, where Bush Senior did in '91.

So as to 'unilateral action', the true colors of Bush will be seen when he confides in a UN appointed envoy to rebuild the Iraqi administration - as he did in Afghanistan.

Everybody in his right mind should see this war as "a dirty job but someone has gotta' do it" and therefore support the US, yet it's frightening to see the Nazi-like fanatism in some of the posts here. Think unbiased. And stop being so pathetically brainwashed.

Direct question to Robert Modean:
If , as you state, "there isn't enough evidence in the world to convince (people with opposing views) we're right", then what's the point of politics? And why do you post comments? True, your comments, more than anyone else's, are pointless insults and daft pomp, but still you seem to spend a great deal of time on these sites.

For Frank McMondom: Uh, no. The UN has demonstrated its uselessness, and should have no part of rebuilding in Iraq. You gotta pay to play.

The Palestinians deserve a state when they stop killing Jews. But I do find it amusing that so many people refer to what Israel does as atrocities (including, I presume, donating blood for Pali wounded, etc.) but don't mention suicide bombers or Pali "warriors" who murder little children in their beds.

"It's a mistake, especially considering that Bush couldn't get important Arab countries liike Egypt in the coalition, where Bush Senior did in '91."

GW Bush's plan from the start was regime change. Bury Saddam is a private goal. Everyone knew that - that is why they wouldn't join up. The only reason Bush "the elder " got Arab countries is because he AGREED not to kill Saddam Hussein. That gigantic coalition could have taken him out but they were too pussywhipped to try, instead they let a hundred thousand get slaughtered because of the uprising they encouraged but didn't help with.

"Do we see the shift in the US policy towards Israel? (Who by the way ignored UN resolutions one after the other much like Saddam) Maybe. Bush was the first president to openly speak about a 'two state solution', but failed to comment on the continuing attrocities against Palestinian civilians in the Gaza.""

Unlike Saddam, Israel doesn't want to kill civilians and Americans. Unlike Saddam, Israel is fighting an army everyday dressed like civilians and targeting women and children. So obviously there is a difference between Israel and Iraq. We were on Saddam's hit list not Israels.

Bush has spoken out when he felt Israel went over the line but it is a little hard considering the sheer volume of atrocities the "Palestinians" are dishing out.

I believe that Bush will be instrumental in getting a Peace agreement and a state for Palestine. Why? Because he isn't a big pussy that can be pushed over like the others that have tried. We shall see.

Some good points here and there. But as the article states and as Chris points out, there aren't any major connections between Saddam and Ansar. One way or the other, the whole Iraq is in league with Al-Qaeda thing is mostly fantasy, they've got one thing in common, they don't like the US or Israel. But you could say that about many nations.
Also, as previously stated those Scuds were probably Al-Samouds and there was also something false about the chemical suits find as well.
So I think Blair and Bush are more like 1/2 for 3.
Anyway, this isn't a war to liberate Iraq, it's to disarm Saddam. Because he's got all those WMD that no one can find. Remember?!

Chris and Chip,

I direct you here, here, and here.

Frank,

Israel has "violated" UN General Assembly resolutions, which, by the terms of the U.N. Charter, are NOT BINDING ON MEMBERS. Iraq has violated UN Security Council resolutions, which ARE binding on members.

In addition, Bush has expressed support for a democratic Palestine and called on Israel to cease building new settlements. Both of those are rather new additions to US Israel policy.

3000 Chem suits APPEAR false?

Well, at least we're relying on an emotion here instead of logic. Logic states that 3000 suits and atropine (sp?) injectors were there in case of either a chem attack by the US or the Iraqis. We don't generally use them and I haven't heard any plans to do so during this conflict. Of course, I'm sure Franks and Bush got together before the war and said "Let's make sure we launch a gas attack so we can blame it on the Iraqis. It'll make getting the ooooiiill easier!"

But hey, if you FEEL something's wrong there, then I guess there must be something to it, right?

frankly, I don't know why there is this endless push to link Saddam to Al-Qaeda.

Links to terrorism are enough. Each check paid to the family of a suicide bomber is enough.

Each check funds terrorist acts. What more do we need?

Frank Mc--I note that you take Pres. Bush to task BOTH for including non-democratic countries in the coalition, then take him to task for not including Egypt. hmm.

jack, thanks for making that point.

Those of us who support this war should quit worrying about those who don't. Every time some revelation is made during the fog of war we cry "there is the smoking gun" as if we needed something further. We don't. And then when that "smoking gun" proves to be bogus, it gives false credence to the pro-saddam side.

A violated cease fire agreement, 12 years of ignored resolutions, and proven terror financing. More than enough.