collapse

Resources

Recent Posts

Update your win total by connie
[Today at 01:51:43 PM]


Stats by Newsdreams
[Today at 12:30:54 PM]


Psyched about the future of Marquette hoops by Newsdreams
[Today at 12:29:30 PM]


What would make you show Shaka the door in March? by wadesworld
[Today at 12:14:30 PM]


Amadou in the portal by panda
[Today at 11:57:31 AM]


Is Shaka doubling down or just protecting his guys? by GoFastAndWin
[Today at 11:52:07 AM]


2025-26 NET Rankings by MU Fan in Connecticut
[Today at 10:12:46 AM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!


Murffieus

Now that GWB laid out the case for fighting Al Quida in Iraq-----the liberal media is using the spin that "the vast majority of Al Quida in Iraq are Iraqi's" and are therefore on their own-----and that "our biggest threat from Al Quida comes from Pakistan"-----with the implication that we should be doing more there (what invade another country?).

On the first allegation, never mind the fact that Gen Patreaus mentioned the other day that most of the Al Quida in Iraq were Saudis. Another thing that escapes the liberal spin is that Al Masri the leader of Al Quida/Iraq spent a lot of time with Bin Laden in Afghanistan (hmmm, I wonder how he got the top job in Iraq).

On the second point about Al Quida/Pakistan being the biggest threat to the USA----this may or may not be true-----never mind though that Bin Laden implored Zarqawi (when alive) to plan and mount attacks from Iraq on the USA and elsewhere) -----but even if true that Al Quida/Pakistan does present a greater danger, does that mean for example that you stop fighting the Germans & Rommel in northern Africa or that we stop fighting Mussolini in Italy because the biggest threat posed by the Germans was in western continental Europe?

Previous topic - Next topic