And the United States had ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Kate,
I'm still sorta new at this and not sure how the whole trackback thing works.
Bottom line...I stole your piece. Linked, of course.
Keep up the good work.
Brian

No problem, Brian - my trackbacks are broken anyway. (Actually, you're best to point your link to the original piece, at Old War Dogs.)

I would argue that the groundswell of war doubters and Bush skeptics currently permeating the polled US constituency right now is not "Liberal" per se but a coalition of the center..center right and center left have large concerns with the dismal performance of the Bush regime and are showing cynical incredulity about Bush admin claims and dogmatics...this makes sense as we have a minority President acting like he's a majority President and ripping off executive orders to consolidate his power as fast as he vetos any congressional oversight.....the polling numbers that show American's distain for Congress speak volumes about this new intolerance in the electorate with official ineptitude, deception, arrogance and particularly political agendas other than those of the will of the majority.

I think this uneasiness and growing anger translates across all partisan lines because polling shows the Dems being held to the same cynical criteria by the electorate.

IF the Whitehouse changes hands, and the public see more of this private agenda shit, I believe there will be a substantive upheaval in US politics driven by the public and carried by reformist candidates in both parties.

That fact that only a handful of Washington media watchers and candidates have tweeked onto this new public pulse shows the 2 major parties have their heads in the clouds when they need their ear to the ground.

There's plenty of evidence showing Saddam meeting and supporting al Queda in Iraq...this is so passe.

The post was down for a bit due to a technical glitch. You are officially stolen again, and of course, I linked to Old War Dogs as well.
Cheers :)

Yes and it's old news that both Saddam and Bin Laden were paid CIA assets at one time....they play the field...just like the US does...a friend today is tomorrow's enemy...this is the flakey world of global politics played undercover by the spooks in CIA, MI6, KGB and Mossad, Hezbolla and other murder for hire rogue agencies.

Maybe the US voter is sick of foreign policy ( intrigue) made in secret by intel/military agencies and would like to see congress clipped into the loop more often.

Two questions:
1. Where did Saddam Hussein get his WMD technology from?

2. Who encouraged him to declare war on Iran?

Iraq wins the Asian Cup! Good News!

WL Mackenzie. Where do you get this s**t? Watching too many Hollywood spook movies? The CIA compare with Hezbolla? What are you smoking?

And Sheik; state your evidence. Saddam needed encouragement?? WMD technology has been around since WW1. British came up with a biological weapons (Anthrax) test during WW11 in a couple of months.

Saint Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda?! OMG! We have a right to know what other magnanimous gentle Liberals like Saddam Hussein had ties to al-Qaeda.

To them I would say consider this:
Syria wasn't invaded and occupied; Jordan wasn't invaded and occupied; Egypt wasn't invaded and occupied; Yemen wasn't invaded and occupied; Somalia wasn't invaded and occupied; Saudi Arabia wasn't invaded and occupied; the various Gulf monarchies weren't invaded and occupied; Iran wasn't invaded and occupied; Pakistan wasn't invaded and occupied; Indonesia, the Philippines, North Korea and several of the former Soviet satellites under Muslim rule weren't invaded and occupied.

But Iraq was.

Please don't pull the tired groupthink BS of anyone who thinks otherwise must be a lefty.I originally supported Bush going into Iraq because I was,like many others,fooled by his slick sales pitch.

It wasn't until he announced the sixth or so excuse(Al Qaeda being 2 or 3,I think)for being in Iraq that I realized he was just another lying SOB politician putting covering his exposed ass ahead of all other concerns.

Not only has he squandered the support he started the Iraq war with,he has managed to divert attention,support and assets from the REAL war on terror in Afgan.
I couldn't care less what party he belongs to....he's a diaster as a tactition and a leader.

I believe his unapproval ratings clearly show that.

Sheik, ya got us again. The US obviously "encourgaged" Hussein to invade Iran, and supplied him with AK47s and Mig jets to do the job. Man those Americans are stupid.

Answer to first question, WMD is a "poor man's nuke," with raw materials available from any industrial nation. Unless you have some evidence to present, then spare us.

BTW, AQ had training camp in northern Iraq. El dead man headed the camp (Jordanian) and was responsible for starting and fueling insurgency,though the will to kill was already there.

It still was not justification for US invasion of Iraq. 9/11 didn't change how Iraq was involved in terror, such as subsidizing families of Palestinian homicide bombers.

Sheik, who "encouraged" Hussein to invade Kuwait? With AK47s and Mig jets?

Yeah right, USA (Bush) is source of all evil in world. Russia, China, Iran and so on are just nice little fellas who wouldn't hurt a flea; the only problem in the world is US "imperialism."

Sheik your argument is getting old, but it is still dangerous. When US disengaged in 90s, they reaped 9/11. Does the US do some pretty stupid things, yes; but they don't have a monopoly on interfering or acting like imperialists. The Soviet Union was the most successful empire of the 20th century, but they get a free ride from the likes of you. That's what will ultimately get us into a larger conflict.

You really need to grow up and get over your USA/Bush fixation; maybe you should go back to thumbsucking.

If all these countries had links to Al-Qaeda, it dillutes the rationale for war specifically with Iraq, unless the US believed, as I believe they did, that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous leader who had to be taken out.

As Iran heats up, it may turn out that the US picked the wrong fight and fought the wrong war.

Follow the $$. Some mountebanks were making a fortune and consolidating power over the teeming masses by selling Saddam's oil ( via the UN food program).

President Bush upset that applecart when he invaded Iraq. There are some big puffed up 'bigshots' who had their plans for global poverty put on the back burner! President Bush is a hero to any freedom loving person - I am one of his supporters. Al Gore wants to bankrupt the American people, he has no interest in freeing people from oppression - he and Paul Martin would have climbed on the Mo Strong "carbon Credits" bus and bankrupt North America.

Why are we so willing to be slaves? Boggles my mind!

They must have wippied the floor with CHINA and IRAN

Ladies and gentlemen, victims of Fox News entertainment product.

"As Iran heats up, it may turn out that the US picked the wrong fight and fought the wrong war."

If Iran heats up, it will be easier to attack from Iraq and Afghanistan. Saddam, just like everybody else, was going to die. Food poisoning, a bad flu, bullet to the head from a Kurd/Shiite/Iranian/Jew/bodyguard/son. Without American troops in Baghdad, what then? You think civilian deaths are high now. What if American troops and media weren't there to report it? Sunni bodies would be clogging the rivers. Think Rwanda or Darfur with more money and more international meddling.

The US has been at war with the Iranian regime since the Shah fell. They propped up Saddam to fight them, didn't work out so well (Kuwait). Now they're trying more direct pressure, surrounding them from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Man, these moonbats just can't read. Shamrock mentioned it earlier. The majority of Iraq's military hardware was from Russia. The last I heard, the US did not ship MIG's, AK-47's or T-72 tanks. How on earth can anybody try to say that the yanks provided Hussein with this equipment?

kingstonland: Thanks for some on the level info. Don't know what's with some of the other posters.
The only thing the US supplied were some civilian model helicopters for medical use. He, Saddam, of course, used them militarily. He was getting suplies such as aluminum tubes for centrifuges from European countries. Several WMD's were found: I think about 3000 tons in about 1000 caches, still with the traces of ricin and nerve gas in the munitions.
Bush and Blair (with Australia) went into Iraq because they realized that they needed a base near the head of the snake to go on the OFFENSIVE. Ever see a football team win with only defense working? Baghdad is to be the capital of the Caliphate; Osama said so: Listen to the enemy. Afgan was never a main theater for the offense. Without an offensive in Iraq we will be fighting AQ here in NA. Every AQ or Taliban we kill over there is one less to meet here. I now read it is getting difficult to recruit suicide bombers over there. Do tell!
Our borders are porous and not defend-able. And we have to consider where Europe would be without ME oil. Look for a economic depression of staggering proportions.
And just as in football; with the fans boo-ing the home team, they are not likely to win the game. In this case, it might be well to consider the stakes before damaging the team's morale.

I like a comment thread where people can disagree and still carry on a respectful conversation.
I'll be visiting much more often.

Exactly how does this guy define "ties?" For there to be a meaningful connection between Al Qaeda and a particular country worthy of our invading the place, there ought to be a connection between Al Qaeda and that country's GOVERNMENT, not particular individuals who live or used to live there. The invasion of Afghanistan met this criterion.
By this definition, many of the "ties" he sees evaporate. The Philippines is, of course, run by Christians who have no sympathy with Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia is run by nasty people, but Al Qaeda hates them and they hate Al Qaeda back. Ditto for most of the Gulf States and Egypt. Iran is run by even nastier people, but they are Shi'ite and Al Qaeda is Sunni. They have possibly forged ties today, but I am not aware of any that predate the invasion of Iraq. I would be very surprised to learn of ties between the Jordanian government and Al Qaeda.
His historical analogies are also ludicrously strained, and of course he loses points for illiterate use of "Democrat" as an adjective.