Why Do Democrats Fear the Al-Qaida/Saddam Relationship? (Michael Barone)

Real Clear Politics ^ | 3-6-06 | Michael Barone

[massgopguy]

The attack on the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan was to destroy Ricin. Only one country in the Middle East was maunfacturing Ricin. Go ahead say it. SAY IT! RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgh!

[Shelayne]

Thanks for all the links. You are, well, a PEACH! ;^)

[antceecee]

Marking for later reading. Thank you for the post.

[antceecee]

Thanks for all of the reference material.... marking for later reading.

[DrewsDad]

At the very least, Saddam was actively funding and promoting terrorist attacks against one of our allies with his open offer of $25K to the families of homicide bombers.

If the stronger evidence for the Saddam-Al Qaida links and the movement of WMD to Syria were known by this administration before the last election, would they have sat on the information with such a close election outcome? This is what puzzles me. Were they so confidant that they had the election precisely measured and won, that they could hold onto these trump cards?

[I got the rope]

You're my kinda Freeper.

[marlon]

Michael Barrone he make way to much sense the demo/socialists are never going to fall for his clear-headed assessment.

[I got the rope]

Bookmarking...BUMP!

[NutCrackerBoy]

A balanced analysis of the situation. I noticed there was no name calling or outlandish allegations. That's one of the differences of the right and the left.

Michael Barone has immense credibility. I am so glad to read his thoughtful summary and hope these sensible views get plenty of attention. Ask a lefty who the name callers on the right are, and they'll reply Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. But IMO there are signs dedicated liberals are becoming more willing to hear the voices of right-wing pundits like Peggy Noonan, who speaks in a more NPR-like understated fashion and is heard on NPR these days. Michael Barone is similarly an excellent spokesman, and yes it does matter to me what liberals think. Among other reasons, I'm married to one.

[ocr1]

ping

[jazusamo]

Yes, I agree with you on everything but O'Reilly. I'm not a fan of his but not because I don't consider him a conservative, I consider him an opportunist. Even though he is right on many things, I believe he goes for the ratings on some issues.

[ohioWfan]

Peach..........you are AMAZING!! Thanks!

Bookmarking!

[wolfcreek]

Between MSM, the Libs and their ilk, bringing out info on connections, or for that matter, anything regarding the war in a positive light , would be futile. The brainwashing of America continues.

[Democratshavenobrains]

I think most leftists admit there were SOME connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaida. However, they contend that Al Qaida had connections with many other countries, as the UAE deal has shown, but we aren't invading those countries like we did with Iraq.

[shrinkermd]

Need some volunteers like those that did the Swift Boat adds. A few chosen and controversial adds hooking Saddam and Al Q together would result in panic, panic and rage, rage on the left.

[xzins]

See phenomenal post #4 by Peach.

Absolutely awesome cataloguing/research/annotation.

[Peach]

See #4 for help with your endeavor.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Since you are married to a liberal you may be able to answer my question. How can intelligent people support something that is so obviously based on lying and distorting the truth?

I am thinking specifically of media people who distort and hide the truth as a matter of practice. Why? Don't they see that something that must be lied about is not worthy of their support.

I am an old guy who grew up with the Communist threat and I know a great deal about it. I am not looking for Communist techniques but instead what goes on in the minds of those Lenin called "useful idiots".

[smoothsailing]

Here's a connection the Left could accept:

[Hunble]

O U T S T A N D I N G