I'm forced to agree with the righties that there are indeed a lot of Al Qaeda (or sympathizers) in Iraq.  However, taking time to *honestly* analyze how they came to be there turns up some interesting facts.

Bush and his few remaining supporters like to talk about how Al Qaeda was in Iraq during Saddam's time -- and that justified the war.  Well, it is true that there was an Al Qaeda faction present when Saddam was running the show.  There weren't many, and Saddam was in fact at war with them.

Since our enlightened invasion, however, Al Qaeda (and sympathizers) have multiplied by leaps and bounds in Iraq.  The U.S. invasion was perhaps the best gift anyone could have given them.  It instantly created a huge number of sympathizers and at the same time created a wonderful training ground (to replace what they had lost in Afghanistan).

Disagree?  I'd suggest reading some history.  I know -- it's much more fun to spout groundless opinions.  However, some of us prefer objective reality.

They should offer $10 million for a picture of bin Laden.  Make sure he's holding something dated like the NY Times (you just know he reads it).  No one would collect because he's probably pushing up daisies, or if he was in Pakistan, poppies.

bin Laden is with Elvis.

Dave, Tn (Sent Friday, July 13, 2007 7:15 PM)

The truth is that 133 Congressional Democrats voted "NO" on the Iraq Resolution compared to SIX Republicans. Sorry buddy, your "liberal and democratic" theory is absurd!! Nice job trying to suck us into the blame.  If you don’t want to be lumped in with the lies of Fox NOISE and the RNC, stop repeating their idiotic talking points – Your Choice.

ALL BLAME LIES SQUARELY WITH GWB AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!!

The truth hurts Dave, doesn't it?? The truth is GWB has the blood of tens of thousands of human beings on his hands, as does every congressional member that continues to fund this invasion!! It's over and our brave men and women in the military should not have to make one more sacrifice when the war should never have begun and Dictator Bush could care less that Americans continue to die needlessly on “his” watch.

bin Laden has not been captured, killed or brought to justice as a direct result of the Iraq Invasion, which was based solely on GWB's obsession with Sadaam Hussein.

No, this one's on the Republican Party and you know it.  Stop attempting to make this the “in part” liberals/dems fault - it's asinine and factually incorrect.  Americans know this and will show it in 2008.  The Republican Party is damaged and will continue to be for decades - that's the "TRUTH"!!  

I thought the fight against Al-Qaeda is being fought in Afghanistan. How is it now being fought in Iraq? Iraq was about WMDS, REMEMBER? And it was also about removing Saddam. It was never a fight against Al-Qaeda. Strange how the American motives are changed every now and then. Its the Iraqis who are fighting against the American Occupation, not Al-Qaeda. By saying the contrary the Bush American is only trying to drum up support for the continued occupation of Iraq. BUSH IS A LIAR.

Jeez, what difference could it possibly make to increase a reward for Bin Ladin? He just got $300 million from the Iraq bank, thanks to the U.S. putting it there, guarded by our enemies security guards. I want to apply for a securuty guard job at that bank right now! Just for one weekend. I could put that money back in the tax payor's pockets by Monday morning.

I suggest trimming the reward by 25% each week starting 30 days from now. Seeing that 25K slip
slowly away might motivate a seeker of truth and cash.

Personally, I think the Bush's and the bin-Laden family may have made some secret deal which allowed us Saudi support in Iraq if we stopped going after Osama.  Maybe, the First Read reporters could look into this without dismissing it because no one thinks our President would do such a thing.

its not really a story to comment on how 1 senator voted. the bigger story is why 88 senators voted for it. why are they wasting their time with this kind of legislation. $25 million is already enough to make any Afghan or Pakistani civilian incredibly rich.

Time to bring in Dog the Bounty Hunter......

The second part of the amendment requires the administration to inform Congress with a report on the counterintelligence methods specifically being used to find bin Laden. In the last counter insurgency report issued last September, bin Laden was not specifically mentioned.
    Also, since there were 89 Senators voting for this, I fail to see how this is only supported by Democrats.And PDB there were also 23 Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq.Some of them lost their jobs in the 2004 elections because they were smeared as unpatriotic.The adminsistration took their eye off the prize, failed to secure 'hearts and minds" in the area and rested their policy in the area, in part, on the shoulders of a military dictator. Our best friend Musharaff. All of that is now unraveling and we can only sit on the side-lines and see how it all plays out.
    I don't call that approach "leadership" on the part of this administration to find the people responsible for 9/11. I call that abjucation of leadership and abuse of the power given to them by the Constitution to protect and defend their citizens.

     

awabnavi - I generally agree with the point you're making, but its not as absolute as you make it.

True, we didn't go into Iraq because of "al Qaeda in Iraq." This group didn't exist at the time, to the best of our knowledge. And, no, I can't really explain why we did go into Iraq, other than my general view that we had a handful of folks who never agreed with HW Bush's decision not to, and they convinced the son to finish the job. Dubya was a willing puppet, because he always wanted to one-up the old man. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

Anyway, Iraq is both sectarian violence (i.e., civil war) and an insurgency against outside occupation, simultaneously. This group, al Qaeda in Iraq, formed as part of the insurrection. I think initially it had nothing to do with bin Laden's guys, and just picked the name because they thought it would help them draw recruits and rise to the top of the list of the hundreds of little insurrection cells, all fighting for prominence.

There are foreign fighters in Iraq. How many depends on who you ask. And these foreign guys are responsible for a lot of the suicide bombing and other terrorist-type actions.

I think the more dominant dynamic is the sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia, though. And its the one that will have the lasting effect, as the Shi-ites win, turning Iraq into part of a greater Iran and creating an even larger refugee crisis than we're now seeing in Jordan and Syria.

And PDB there were also 23 Senators who voted against the invasion of Iraq. Some of them lost their jobs in the 2004 elections because they were smeared as unpatriotic    
Desmond (Sent Monday, July 16, 2007 7:44 AM)

WRONG DESMOND!! While 23 Senators voted against the resolution, ONLY ONE Republican Senator voted against the resolution, Lincoln Chafee.  Here ARE the facts!! Don’t play the “Spin Game” with me.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.   Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but it failed.
In the House, six Republicans -- Ron Paul of Texas; Connie Morella of Maryland; Jim Leach of Iowa; Amo Houghton of New York; John Hostettler of Indiana; and John Duncan of Tennessee -- joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution.
Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.
"I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent," said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.
Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich, Ohio, said the 133 votes against the measure were "a very strong message" to the administration.
In conclusion, the facts speak for themselves, 133 democrats voted against the resolution compared to just SEVEN republicans total, and yes, only ONE republican Senator voted against it!!
STUDY UP!!

We, whether liberals, conservatives, democrats, or republicans, have all been duped by these guys--the administration!  
Thank you for pointing that out.
J.D. in California (Sent Friday, July 13, 2007 9:04 PM)
No problem J.D., I guess I also feel that many, NOT you, feel "liberal" is a dirty word or an insult. I am a VERY PROUD progressive liberal. However, I was never fooled by the idiot in the White House and knew he was lying when he first began spewing his crap about WMD.  I really was never duped, and I guess I am grateful for that!!

I also knew better and always knew he was NEVER competent to be president.  Whether I am a democrat, I still knew this guy was just plain dumb....

Thank you....

Desmond (Sent Monday, July 16, 2007 7:44 AM)

I AM SO SORRY!! I misunderstood your post.  Please accept my apology!!

PDB, that's okay. I just read your post and your repost. It's easy to get confused with all the spin put out by the administration. Wouldn't be the first time someone misunderstood me. However, when my President called me unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war, that was a first.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):