Posted on 12/31/2006 7:06:03 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Support-from-an-odd-source ping to Today show list.
Somebody missed the memo.
The coming Ba'athist uprising has been a myth from day one. The Ba'ath party was mortally wounded in the invasion, and has never offered serious resistance to the United States military. While the military itself (due to Administration guidance) wasted a long time focusing on this threat, it never materialized. AQI, on the other hand, has been a constant thorn in our side. Nice for everyone to finally catch up.
I noticed Perky Katie was wearing Navy Blue Friday. I guess her black was at the cleaners.
"Did I say al Qaeda? I didn't mean al Qaeda. That was just a slip of the tongue. I meant, uh, some other guys."
"most of the insurgents who are now attacking American troops in this country are not Saddam supporters at all"
I don't think has suggested that they are. This is a pretty pointless article, with at best a strawman target.
Slip of the lip more likely.
Never trust a Brit with a French screen-name ;-)
The media was fully expecting this response and seemed to be praying for it (so they could again proclaim Bush's fault).
Even the local news radio station assured listeners Friday that they would break in with any details on violence exploding in Iraq as a result of the execution. Cheering crowds are not newsworthy.
You don't disagree then?
I do disagree. When's the last time you heard a member of the liberal media acknowledge that most of the violence against US troops is Al Qaeda-inspired?
If it will help Bush, it's not true. If it will hurt Bush, it's true. What part don't you understand? It's all very logical.
The good thing about the Iraq war is that it is attracting terrorists from all over, and we can pick them all off there.
"When's the last time you heard a member of the liberal media acknowledge that most of the violence against US troops is Al Qaeda-inspired?"
It depends what you mean by 'Al Qaeda-inspired'. Engel talks of 'Al Qaeda type' groups rather than 'Al Qaeda', though I doubt they carry membership cards in any case. I'm more familiar with the British media than the US media, but I don't recall seeing anyone recently attempting to make an argument that Baathists were responsible for the majority of attacks on troops, if they ever made that argument.
What makes Engel's comment interesting to me was not that he said it wasn't Baathists responsible for the violence, but that he did say it was al-Qaeda types.
Knock me over with a feather. Then, in 2020, when archeologists accidentally turn up a trove of WMDs in Syria, stringer Katie Couric will say, "Nevermind."
It depends what he means by Al Qaeda types though. If it simply means 'a loose grouping with religious motivations' then that would pretty much be a synonym for 'anyone other than former baathists'. If he's talking about people with actual connections to a defined Al Qaeda command structure, then I'd concede your point, but I also wouldn't know on what basis he was making that claim.
Every squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.
Not only that, but the baathist party was in retreat even before we invaded. They held little control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.