09 September 2004

al Qaeda al Iraq

We routinely see reports in the media from as far afield as the Phillipines, Malaysia. Sudan, Yemen. France,Germany. Pakistan, Iran. Great Britain and the US. Detroit MI, Buffalo NY. San Diego CA, Miami FL.

We have seen reports from all of the above locations about one group, al Qaeda. The left, including the majority of the media in this country, would have us believe that while al Qaeda has terror cells, training operations, and are recruiting in all these places. Al Qaeda was NOT, repeat NOT in Iraq. They were everywhere else in the world, but NOT in Iraq.

What !?

Sorry, but that does not compute. Especially in light of the evidence that Saddam Husseins regime was paying the surviving family members of homocide bombers. His regime was providing sanctuary for the terrorist Abu Nidal. Other terrorists and other terror groups but NOT al Qaeda.

Come on, this stretches the credulity of even the likes of the Carter-Albright-Kerry wing of the democratic party. If they actually believe foolishness like this, they are unqualified to hold office, any office. If they don't believe it, yet espouse such nonsense, they are guilty of something far more damning. Seeking to politicize the issue for the sake of the acquisition of power, which is far more alarming than the former proposition I put forward above. Because it means that, to them, the acquisition of power is more important than the security of our nation.

But al Qaeda was NOT repeat NOT in Iraq. We are supposed to believe that although al Qaeda was operating virtually everywhere else in the world, and Saddam not only offered safe-haven to the likes of Abu Nidal, but was paying for homocide bombings against Israel, al Qaeda was NOT repeat NOT operating in Iraq. Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, maybe But NOT in Iraq!

This is important to understand because Jon (French spelling, I left out the"h" on purpose) Kerry's latest strategy from the likes of James Carville and Paul Begala is to try to separate Iraq from the war on terror. Sorry but this does not add up.

Also, last night I was watching a rerun of Meet the Press and Madeline Albright (Clintons SecState) cleared up someting that has been gnawing at me for a while. Russert pressed her pretty good. And she finally gave it up. Russert swerved into a question I have asked in this forum, and that is: By "more internationalization" in the war in Iraq(a concept most Americans rightly regard with hostility anyway) does Kerry mean the UN? Does he mean France, Germany? Albright bit, in fact she took it hook line and sinker. She said that if we elect Kerry on 2NOV04 that we have a "better chance of getting French and German involvement".

Well that makes it all better, we should vote for a pig-in-a-poke like that? Because with Kerry we will have a better chance of obtaining help from the French and the Germans in Iraq? This is absolutely laughable, and I hope we here more of it. The American voter is way smarter than she gives them credit for, and the more of this foolishness they hear, the more likey they are to vote for Bush.

Also I have picked up on some new spin the dems are offering up. Listen for it and see if you spot it yourself. Kerrys surrogates (and it is always his lackeys, because Kerry himself cannot talk to the media for fear of swift-vet questions) when pressed for specifics how the jr. Senator from MA would handle the situation, the answer is that the situation in Iraq is "seriously degraded". Or that the good Senator "cannot possibly know what he will be facing on 21JAN05 when he takes office". Note that neither response or variances of same provide an answer to the question, what is Kerry's plan du jour on Iraq? Is he going to cut and run in 6mos or 4yrs? Which one is it today? Mort Kondracke is on this riff too check him athttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_13_04_MK.html -SpinDaddy