[rockinqsranch]

“Six years after 9/11/01, in the midst of a global conflict against al-Qaeda and its enablers, is there a more serious mistake we could make?”

Elect a Liberal/Socialist as President comes to mind.

[Man50D]

Next stop, Iran.

[xzins]

a case can be made that had President Bush not invaded Iraq, we would not need to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq.

That almost caused me to laugh, it is so obviously wrong. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq. Saddam had provided safe haven to every terrorist organization of the last 3 decades. We get to decide: Would Saddam have provided safe haven to al qaeda if they'd been hard pressed elsewhere in the world. They match on their faith: Sunni. They overlap on part of the mission: injure America. Saddam had already granted safe haven to independent al qaeda"ish" cells: e.g., al Zarqawi at Salmon Pak. They would be a delivery system for Saddam of mayhem & terror: with some level of deniability. Saddam would have used them is my conclusion. And then we would have had to confront Iraq. In short, pay me now or pay me later.

[Beckwith]

Top al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to be living in the remote reaches of northwest Pakistan

Osama bin Laden is dead!

[Jaxter]

By the title I just assumed the story was about Hillary.

[SoFloFreeper]

Al Qaeda's Hope:

[Tolsti]

People need to understand the AQ’s greater goals are the exact same as the average islamic goal.

[SlowBoat407]

Al Qaeda wants radical islam to rule the ME and more.

We are the only ones keeping that from happening.

Do the math.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting. Very good article by Cliff May.