Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[JohnGalt]

LOL

Read that theory in a Marvel comic book? (see tagline)

[JohnGalt]

You were doing so well until this post.

American conservatives don't subscribe to the ideological world views being promoted by the Red Right on this thread.

Reagan was a New Deal liberal, but also a patriot, a love of "libertarian" rhetoric, and a skilled statesmen with talent few have been able to understand. The absurd joke in comparing Reagan's "supporting democracy" versus the leftwing impulse to bomb people in order to make them 'free' (no guns or 'free trade', but plenty of porn and abortion) is just another mark on why nobody on the Right takes the Hawks seriously.

I alredy called you a Trotskyite or an unwilling dupe to a Trotskite world view, no need to do it again.

I mention the cost of the war because conservatives have always been against debt financed wars. Debt weakens national security. I am revealing y'all to be phony idealists on that issue.

Now, how many lives and how much money is democracy in Iraq worth? Specific numbers; demonstrate to the group that you have really thought this one through. (*roll eyes*)

[Quilla]

Here's one democrat that actually admits a link exists between Iraq and al Qaeda:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

[JohnGalt]

"Human Rights?" "this idea is so 'utopian' "

Where did all these lefties come from, Galt wondered for quitting the thread.

"Are you going to break out in a chorus of Koombya for an encore?"

[Peach]

The intent of some posters on this thread is to "hijack" it so that posters interested in learning more about the subject matter of the thread give up in frustration.

Those posters do this pretty consistently on many threads, especially with regard to WMD threads. They cannot be satisfied with any answer given, have pre-determined worldviews that are inflexible despite world-changing events and are typically isolationist quacks.

[Dr. Frank fan]

You were doing so well until this post.

Presumably you will give me your reasons for saying this and those reasons will be backed up by fact, not pathetic conspiracy theories.

American conservatives don't subscribe to the ideological world views being promoted by the Red Right on this thread.

Explain yourself.

I'm an American conservative. I supported the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq, and possibly one or more future wars (it will depend on the situation(s) ). The only "world view" being promoted in this thread is that it would be good rather than bad if there could be a democratic regime somewhere in the Middle East. I (an American conservative) subscribe to that "world view".

Don't you? What part do you disagree with?

The absurd joke in comparing Reagan's "supporting democracy" versus the leftwing impulse to bomb people in order to make them 'free' (no guns or 'free trade', but plenty of porn and abortion)

The joke is that you think this is what anyone on this thread, or anywhere on FR, supports.

Anyway, I take you to be defending Reagan, i.e. that he doesn't get sent to your "neo-con" doghouse. Well, that's something, I guess.

I alredy called you a Trotskyite or an unwilling dupe to a Trotskite world view, no need to do it again.

No, that's true. It was an idiotic enough thing to say the first time, why embarrass yourself further.

Do you even know who Trotsky was, or is he just known to you as The Guy Neocons Are Basing Their Ideas On (from what you read in some idiotic magazine article)? If so, can't you tell me explicitly what "Trotskyite" idea I believe, wittingly or unwittingly? And don't say "global democratic revolution".

Trotsky was NOT a "democrat"!

I mention the cost of the war because conservatives have always been against debt financed wars. Debt weakens national security. I am revealing y'all to be phony idealists on that issue.

What "issue"? Nobody here is saying "YAY to debt-financed wars!" in case you hadn't noticed. All other things being equal I'd rather balance the budget while we fight this war than not balance the budget while we fight the war. Ok?

Now, how many lives and how much money is democracy in Iraq worth?

Unanswerable, in any war

Specific numbers; demonstrate to the group that you have really thought this one through.

Asking for "specific numbers" in the middle of a war is so asinine that it just demonstrates to the group that you haven't.

[JohnGalt]

You may well have been born in America and live a traditional lifestyle, but all I have seen from you is a general rejection of the tenants of American conservatism.

And if you prefer Jacobin to Trotskyite, have at it.

"Unanswerable in any war?"

Nailed you again, I see. No different than a leftie, both talk only of the lofty goal of your favorite welfare program, and never the cost.

[Dr. Frank fan]

You may well have been born in America and live a traditional lifestyle, but all I have seen from you is a general rejection of the tenants of American conservatism.

Give examples.

By the way, conservatism has no "tenants". Tenants are those people who pay rent to live somewhere. Do you know what word you meant to use there, by any chance? I wonder if your knowledge of vocabulary is as extensive as your knowledge of Trotsky.

And if you prefer Jacobin to Trotskyite, have at it.

I'd prefer you refrain from empty baseless puerile name-calling but perhaps that's too much to ask.

Nailed you again, I see. No different than a leftie, both talk only of the lofty goal of your favorite welfare program, and never the cost.

Please list any war(s) where conservatives (or anyone, really) have successfully specified casualties and cost in advance. Thanks.

Because it seems that by your criterion here (=a war is invalid and "leftie" unless casualties and cost are specified in advance) all wars are invalid. Is that really what you think the "conservative" position to be? If so, let us know, so that we may judge your version of "conservatism" accordingly.

Did the American Revolutioners specify costs and casualties in advance? Guess those Minutemen were a bunch of damn "lefties" huh?

[JohnGalt]

Dyslexia ruins me for the medium ; I have trouble with words that sound the same, but are spelled differently.

American Conservatives don't support "global democratic revolutions" and I would be hard pressed to think of a conservative who championed a war from the Congress--who did you have in mind? Traditionally, American conservatives have acted to preserve this Constitutional Republic in the face of the ability of the government to dupe the mob into supporting its extra Constitutional programs. On the other hand, I can see why a phony might argue that American conservatives traditionally seek to hide from public debate their own view on the cost of such enterprises.

The rest of you post is a general surrender to acceptance that you know nothing about the school of thought you claim to come from. American Conservatives have been against debt financed wars or debt financing in general as a rule. Its hilarious that its news to you.

I asked only you to share with the group how much money and blood would be worth your 'democracy' in Iraq...are you scared to tell the group and prefer to keep it a secret?

The American Revolution was a defense against an actual invader not a pretend invader dreamed up by softporn purveyors and international scoundrels promoted by anti-patriotic men.

[WOSG]

Please link me to the speech you are citing from any of the forefathers where they call for a "global democratic revolution."

Probably he's referring to that American revolutionary Trokstyite gobbledegook "All men are created equal.."

[WOSG]

American Conservatives don't support "global democratic revolutions"

So you were rooting for the Soviet army in the Hungarian 1956 attempted revolution?

[JohnGalt]

Why would I have done that, Red?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[JohnGalt]

Ah, you are a liberal indeed. Thanks for playing.

[WOSG]

The absurd joke in comparing Reagan's "supporting democracy" versus the leftwing impulse to bomb people in order to make them 'free'

The joke is on you. Was Reagan right or wrong to support the Nicaruaguan Contras, the Afghan freedom fighters, and Angolan UNITA rebels? You reinvent history as badly as the Left does.

[JohnGalt]

He was wrong if he condoned extra-Constitutional procedures to fund those particular outfits, but he was clever and patriotic to use proxy armies rather then your neighbors kid into harms way. BTW, are you posting from Iraq?

LOL Tin foil hatter, you are a Leftie and don't even know it.

[WOSG]

"Ah, you are a liberal indeed."

Jefferson-loving classical 18th C liberal, yeah. I do believe that all men are endowed with unalienable rights by God, and that the only just form of Government is that which protects those rights through the consent of the governed.

You on the other hand, are playing with the same fool notions that Leftists like Chomsky have poisoned minds with. i.e. Opposing Western ideals of freedom and democracy as *universal ideals*.

You are either letting emotion overtake logic or you're not being honest, with either yourself or others or both.

[WOSG]

Another question you answer with gibbering obfuscation.

[Dr. Frank fan]

American Conservatives don't support "global democratic revolutions"

These words mean anything to you?

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

I would be hard pressed to think of a conservative who championed a war from the Congress--who did you have in mind?

So you're saying that all conservatives throughout American history have been opposed to all wars? It's ok if that's what you're saying, I just want to hear it explicitly from you.

Traditionally, American conservatives have acted to preserve this Constitutional Republic in the face of the ability of the government to dupe the mob into supporting its extra Constitutional programs.

Irrelevant point in this case as there is no "extra Constitutional program" on the table to be discussed.

I can see why a phony might argue that American conservatives traditionally seek to hide from public debate their own view on the cost of such enterprises.

Refusing to answer an unanswerable question is not "hiding one's view". It's refusing to answer an unanswerable question.

Suppose I ask you what the farthest star (from our Sun) is. You wouldn't answer. Is that because you're "hiding your view" or because the question can't be answered? Same thing here.

The rest of you post is a general surrender to acceptance that you know nothing about the school of thought you claim to come from.

Actually you've accused me, based on nothing, of sinful deviation from that school of thought. It's up to you to back that charge up. Still waiting....

American Conservatives have been against debt financed wars or debt financing in general as a rule.

And I am against debt financing too, all other things being equal. As I've already said.

I asked only you to share with the group how much money and blood would be worth your 'democracy' in Iraq...are you scared to tell the group and prefer to keep it a secret?

See above. No "secret", it's just a stupid and ignorant question.

The American Revolution was a defense against an actual invader not a pretend invader dreamed up by softporn purveyors and international scoundrels promoted by anti-patriotic men.

My you do love your own writing don't you.

All that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

You're (incredibly) now implying that war should be opposed unless the cost is specified in advance.

The cost of the American Revolution (which was a war) was not specified in advance, by anybody you can point to. Thus you either must withdraw your support for the American Revolution, or acknowledge that issue of cost-specification has no bearing per se on the validity of a given war. One or the other. Which is it? You tell me.

P.S. I was right wasn't I, you don't know jack squat about Trotsky do you.

[JohnGalt]

A classical liberal who favors debt financed wars as you favor abstract rights? Ya sure you betcha. You are priceless.

You clearly have no understanding of Western concepts of liberty if you think like the French Jacobins.

[WOSG]

YOU: American Conservatives don't support "global democratic revolutions"

ME: So you were rooting for the Soviet army in the Hungarian 1956 attempted revolution?

YOU: Why would I have done that, Red? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

ME: More gibbering obfuscation from you. Either you do or you do not support democratic revolutions in other countries. If you dont, you cant mind Soviet tanks crushing Hungarian democratic fighters. If you do, you should get off the back of those of us who support freedom fighters in other contexts. Of course, stating Conservatives dont do that support at all is simply contrary to historical fact. We Conservatives have supported plenty of pro-freedom and anti-communist revolutionary movements over the years, and have supported US involvement of same.

Your incapacity to answer questions logically is as confounding and marvellous as Kerry's incapacity to state a clear position on anything.