Ohhhhh....**SNAP** !!!

That, my friends, is how you smack down a smug Republican who thinks that riding on his war record is going to put him in the Oval Office in November. :)

I guess BHO is waiting for Al Qaeda to move back to Pakistan so he can bomb them and start world war III. He is so naive. BHO wasn't even in the senate when we went to war with Iraq. It is easy to criticize when you weren't even there! HILLARY 2008!

That was quite a smackdown by Barack.

Popular saying by Mccain. " I will follow Osama Bi laden to the gates of hell!" It is strongly believed he is in Parkistan. Will McCaine follow him to that gate of hell ?

Hold it! Did I read right that Obama says we should continue to strike Al Qaeda in Iraq. We are talking about Iraq, are we not? Does that mean he does not intend to pull all the troops out of Iraq as he has been saying he would?

Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are. If we pull out, they'll have two options - leave right behind us or stay and face the Shia backlash. I'm betting they leave.

Focus on the head of the snake, which is across the border from eastern Afghanistan.

I wish the Hillary supporters would realize that you can't have your cake and eat it too. On one hand, you say that he's too inexperienced and doesn't have the judgement to be POTUS. On the other hand, you say that Barack wasn't even in the Senate at the time that he had the wisdom in judgement to oppose this misguided war. Don't you see what a counterproductive argument that is. If, even at that time while running for the State Senate office, he had the wisdom to be very vocal against the war, what makes you think that now 6 years later, he doesn't have what it takes. Just something to make you go...hmmmm....

@ Heather...

First of all, Al-Qaeda is already in Pakistan...

Secondly, Hillary was in the Senate in 2002 and voted with John McCain to go to war with Iraq, allowing Al-Qaeda to set up shop there.

I cannot wait until we can stop this Democratic back and forth and move on to the general election.

Obama 2008!

"Once a crusader for offering the nation's roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants a way to get legal status, McCain now says his first priority is fortifying U.S. borders."

We call that a flip flop of epic proportions, who in their right mind would listen to you.

OHB's Point: McCain's Maverick Status ala 2000 has been distinctly compromised by 8 years of supporting GWB's foreign policy debacles. True, BUT

OHB is starting to campaign for November. Problem, he is campaigning like it's November '06. Democrats already trounced Republicans and took control of Congress from GWB's GOP, but 'what have you done lately' is becoming an inceasingly important question. And, "Sent the FBI to investigate whether a MLB star lied to us" might not be a great vote getter in Nov. 08.

I was hoping Obama would pick Mark Warner as a running mate. Still would be a good pick, I think. But today I think I'm more intrigued by the Tony Zinni idea.

Obama/Zinni - nice ring to it, eh?

If Obama can beat Hilliary, he can beat McCain. Those two are one in the same. At least Obama can counter John on something. Hilliary and John's foreign policy aims are simpatico. John's just more blunt about it. What would they debate on the stage... who would take LONGER to get out of Iraq... Hilliary in 30 years, McCain in 100? Obama has the advantage there.

Barak ain't smacked crap. He has said that he would pull ALL American troops out of Iraq. Now there is a caveat. As long as there are Al Queda in Iraq it would be stupid to pull all our troops out. What is that telling you? He isn't going to pull all our troops out. If you thought he was then you thought he was a fool (and likely you voted for a member of your own party), but now the truth is out. Who's the fool now?

This is hilarious. Obama is going to run circles around McCain. He'll never know what hit him.

Don't you just love it! McCain better be careful with that mouth of his. He better concentrate on how he will have enough money to last till Nov. after signing for that Loan of his. Obama '08

Obama....just another naive liberal

Anyone with a functioning brain cell has to come to the conclusion, TODAY, al Qaeda is in Iraq. Not maybe. They are, period! Al Qaeda is also in Pakistan and Afghanistan as well. Period. That's IS what Hillary or Obama or McCain will inherit, period. No maybe. What happened in the past is just that, past. I would have done this or I would have done that is completely irrelevant, this is what you get in November. What does Obama not understand? Speeches will not make al Qaeda go away. Jeez.

Ground control to Major John: the chicken before the egg argument goes to Obama.

Wherever we are making our presence too felt in the Middle East, there is al-Qaeda because there is reason for al-Qaeda. They follow us, not the other way around.

We had cause in Afghanistan that was well supported on many levels. We did not have cause in Iraq, period.

Neither one was or is to date well planned or comprehensive = not successful despite our military's best efforts. That's not the military's fault, either.

There is no way to correct Iraq but to get out with as little damage to the region as possible. After that, we concentrate on where we should have remained.

We need to repair our borg image so that we may reap the benefits of cooperative allies who are willing and others who share this planet who aren't so willing. A twenty first century makeover of "walk softly but carry a many kinds of sticks" needs to make a comeback.

Obama a figment of our imagination

Remember URKEL or is it URKLE?

The US has a lot of protecting to do to keep up it's reputation. Not only Iraq but Iran and N. Korea and I think that will pull political activist to making the best in the nuclear and atomic element threat along the the biological hazardous materials used together will eliminate the human existance so we will not need to vote for our most powerful hegemonic president again. Like the 'Twilight of the United States Hegemonic Empire Rule'.

Lets again look at North Korea.

The History

Korea emerged in 1948 amid the chaos following the end of World War II. Its history is dominated by the concept of "Juche" or self reliance. This philosophy is important extreme when understanding Korea's development. After the Korean War, Kim Jong-II took over as Head of State.

In 1950, the world was coming to terms with the aftermath of World War II, a new conflict broke out at the edge of the Asian continent. The US and its allies were against the USSR, North Korea, and communist China. This conflict is marked with a devastating death toll. At least two million Korean civilians, approximately 1.5 million communist forces, around 30,000 US soldiers, 400,000 South Korean soldiers and 1,000 United Kingdom soldiers are believed to have died.

The war in Korea did not end in 1953. A cease-fire was placed on July 27, 1953, but no peace treaty was ever signed between the opposing countries. A De-Militarized Zone (DMZ) was established, which officially separated Korea into North and South. The zone is 248 kilometers long and approximately four kilometers wide, and its one of the world's heaviest- fortified borders with roughly one million soldiers on each side. Decades of a rigid state controlled system have led to food shortages, caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement (human rights abuses, torture, public executions, slave labor, forced abortions and infanticides), and a multitude of political prisoners in North Korea.




The Conflict

North Korea, under the leadership of President Kim Jong-II activated a nuclear reactor and expelled United Nations weapons inspectors from its factories. This has led to a threat to East Asia's short and long term security. Since 2002 North Korea has increased its claims to have weapons of mass destruction. A misunderstanding or conflict could result in nuclear war. It is unclear how many nuclear weapons North Korea has but analysts believe that North Korea could produce enough plutonium (Pu) to build approximately one weapon per year. A separate program that enriches uranium (U), raising the isotope electrons, could produce two or more weapons per year.

Tensions increased after a joint training exercise involving the US, Japan, South Korea, and seven other countries as part of a n Anti-proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Because the United Nations made no effort to include North Korea in its peace talks, President Kim Jong-Il declared this an "ultimate war action" and responded by launching a "test" missile from a base just outside of North Korea. Consequently Japan, China and South Korea immediately positioned troops along the DMZ.



The countries and their positions

United States of America

The US seeks a peaceful end to the crisis regarding North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors who are concerned with the threat posed to regional stability and security. The US goal is complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear weapons program. North Korea's neighbors have joined the United States in supporting a weapons free Korean Peninsula.


Germany

Over the past decades, Germany has been a leading voice in nuclear anti-proliferation. Traditionally an ally with the United States, Germany made global news when it opposed military support for a war in Iraq. Despite that disagreement, Germany is committed to stopping nuclear proliferation and is especially concerned with the links between rogue nations that supply arms to terrorist organizations.

China

China provides significant and energy assistance to North Korea. The country encourages North Korea to continue with the six party talks ( United States, South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and North Korea). China agrees it is in the best interest of the region that North Korea halts its nuclear programs. It disagrees with the unrealistic US position of demanding complete, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement seeing it is a goal for the future than an issue to be pressed immediately.



Great Britain

The United Kingdom holds the position thatis crucial for regional stability and international security to demand a denuclearized Korean peninsula. Likewise, countries that pose a threat for nuclear proliferation especially to rouge nations or terrorist organizations must be confronted. In 2003, Great Britain joined the United States in a coalition on the war on terror. Britain has supported the US in seeking complete dismantlement.


France

France has appealed to North Korea to refrain from any action that would be counterproductive or provocative, especially those that would complicate the continuation of the six party talks. However, the French consider the North Korean nuclear program a threat to the international community and one of importance for regional powers, along with China and Japan.


Russia

Russia has been a traditional ally of North Korea, and relations recently have improved. Russia wants to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, but has asked the US to show "flexibility". The Russians are requesting quiet diplomacy to establish the position on both sides and seek a solution that addresses North Korea's energy and security concerns while allowing it the opportunity to voluntarily give up the nuclear program.



Japan

Japan is particularly concerned that a nuclear North Korea would have ability to launch a missile attack that could reach its shores. Japan aims to normalize relations with North Korea in a manner that contributes to peace and stability of the northeastern Asian region maintaining close relationship with both the US and South Korea.

Iraq

The new Iraqi government is supporting the US in its efforts to dismantle nuclear programs around the world and continue fighting terrorism. Its has a "zero tolerance" policy on nuclear weapons programs. The Iraqis understand the importance of nuclear disarmament, especially after chemical were used on the Kurds in the late 1980s.

Australia

Australia sees this issue as one of the most serious security threats facing Asia- Pacific region, and it sees a nuclearized Korean peninsulas leading to other countries seeking nuclear capabilities. The Australians agree with the ultimate US goal of a halt to nuclear activity in North Korea. Australia is known for its neutrality in many global conflicts. While it has taken a stance on nuclear proliferation Australia does not believe a military solution is in its best interests.



South Korea

South Korea has maintained a position similar to China and agrees that North Korea must give up its nuclear program. Since Korea's divided unto North and South, South Korea has been trying to maintain prestige in the Asian sphere and has become a strong ally to the United States. The South Koreans are will to make a deal on energy and aid in exchange for a voluntary halt to North Korea's weapon program.

What.Say.You? ... I know Al-Qaeda is in Pakistan, they are in every country! For BHO to say that he will strike them where ever they are, is not reasonable. You can't bomb sovereign countries and expect there not to be a backlash. That is Bush politics not democratic politics! BHO doesn't have a record to scrutinize. He hasn't voted on anything really unless you count the times he has voted "present", like that is change (?). We need a fighter to bring about change, not someone who is going to straddle the fence! So what he can give a good speech. He hasn't had an original thought in his life. HILLARY 2008!

Are you people on another planet? What allies in Afghanistan? It's only Britain, Canada, and America who are doing the heavy lifting over there, the other so called allies, the dutch, the germans, the french, and so on refuse to engage at all. This is what is really happening, today. That is what Obama, Hillary, or McCain will inherit, period. Deal with it.

Barack Obama was VERY vocal when he was campaigning about his opposition to the war in Iraq! If he were able to vote as in being in the senate he would of said NO. So don't sit here and say he didnt have a choice to make so that means he doesnt have a voice or opinion. Obviously a ton of people agreed with him and he won Illinois!

Obama is right, there was no Al Queda in Iraq before we invaded, and the one thing that all factions in Iraq can agree on is that they do NOT want Al Queda there, that will be the least of the problems in Iraq when we pull out. the Sunni alone will work Al Queda over with a hammer and tongs before they let them get a foothold. With attacks on Al Queda in Afghanistan, where they have gained ground in the last 5 years, and in Pakistan, I think they will be kept busy.

I can understand why McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years or more.

Al Qaeda are not living in a convert. They are married and new ones are born every day. Unless he kills grown ups and young ones, to eliminate them completely is not an easy task.

Al Qaeda will be crushed by the shites or Sunni's when we leave. Al Qaeda main abode is Parkistan and the borders with Afghanistan

Al Qaeda in Iraq will be crushed by the shites or Sunni's when we leave Iraq. Al Qaeda main abode is Parkistan and the borders with Afghanistan

I see that McCain plans on using the enhanced Clinton strategy. Plus, he might try to scare the bejesus out of a few hand-wringers - you know, the 30% who still support Bush.

Louis, Al Qaeda is in Iraq, NOW. It doesn't matter how correct Obama was, that does not change the facts on the ground, today, period. That is what He, or Hillary, or McCain will inherit, period. Furthermore, it is Iran who is the support structure behind the Iraq mess, and it is the Iranian backed militias who will win the day when Obama pulls out the troops. Then we will all face another Iranian fundamentalist regime with the oil money to back them up. Now what Obama? Your move.

By deposing Saddam, we allowed Al Qaida and other terror groups to move into Iraq. Saddam was a military dictator, which is about as anti-terrorist as anyone can get. He had killed off all the terrorists by the time we invaded. Unfortunately, he also had killed innocent people and religious rivals. We probably would be doing a lot better aginst terrorism if we had left Saddam in power but forced him to moderate his cruelty -- and sell us the oil which OPEC now is withholding in order to force prices higher and higher.

McCain would be more of Bush-Mentality. Do we really want to continue down that path? Way to go Barack, it's time for McCain to retire anyway. Pilots have to retire at 60, maybe there should be an age limit on Presidents too. Obama 2008!

Why doesn't the War Party just throw a huge bash to celebrate Al Qaeda in Iraq, Wil? I bet McCain could come up with another 99 reasons to tie us up in this failed war.

Hey, Jack, I'm only trying to deal with the facts on the ground that Hillary, or Obama, or McCain will inherit come November. That is a fact none of us can deny.

John Williams ... I totally agree. The irony is that Iraq was one of the only secular countries in the Middle East. Women also held a higher status in Iraq than many of the countries we call our allies. In my opinion, Hillary is the only candidate that can get us out of Iraq in a quick, responsible way. HILLARY 2008!

The worst ever in US history. I vote for Hillary, if she lose, I will vote for McCain.

One reason, I can sleep well.
I know this two people, Hillary and Mccain.

I don't know Obama, and I don't trust him at all. The more I watch his speech, the more I don't trust.

McCain would be 171 by the time he expects us out.

Correction: What.Say.You? my comment above was not directed at you, sorry, my apologies. It was directed at the author of the comment below yours. Again, sorry! Have a nice day! HILLARY 2008!

Hey, larratta, I'm a Hillary supporter and I will write her name in come November if we should lose, but I must take exception to your post. Obama is an American and he did not nor do I remotely think he'd murder six million Jews. Never. Please rethink what you wrote here. I beg you.

larratta ... I don't know that BHO is worse than Hilter or not, but I will say Hilter was an excellent speaker too. If you watch those old tapes, he could really get the crowd in a frenzy. So, I would like to make the point that good speakers, don't necessarily make good leaders. HILLARY 2008!

I have to agree with Wil. BHO is no where near as bad as Hilter! HILLARY 2008!

I do think Sen. Clinton intends a steady withdrawal. That is not the point with her. It's that she would lose to McCain and we'd get four more years of war.

Heather, nice to see another Hillary supporter here, I feel lonely on these blogs sometimes. Not many of us stand here and fight the good fight. Thank you.

The Sunni have done more to fight AlQueda in Iraq than the US miltary has. we can provide support where and when needed, but frankly if we pull out then Al Quedas big wedge to try and win over converts goes with us. they are a radical fundamental religious organization that does not appeal to the Iraqis. it works in Afghanistan because they have nothing.

You are right Jack. I think both Hillary and Barack would make great presidents. However, I think that Barack has a much better chance to win in November. I also, think that Barack would be better able to deal with foreign countries and begin to clean up the HUGH mess created during the bush years. Obama 2008!

Kerri it kept them all in line!

The whole elect ability argument in my opinion is just a fear tactic by the BHO campaign and the republicans. I hear that from people. Even polls say people by far think Hillary is more qualified to be commander and chief (even people who vote for BHO). I think that is the wrong view. We need to vote for the one that can get us out of Iraq and get our economy going. Don't buy into that elect ability thing. Before BHO started his tactics, Hillary had a huge lead over McCain nationally. In fact, she is the only person that could beat McCain. It is no coincidence that Republicans are voting for BHO. It isn't because they want him to be Pres. It is because they want him to be the dem. nom. so that McCain will win. HILLARY 2008!!

Jack would Hillary lose to McCain? Perhaps in an galaxy far, far away where the dark side still rules the worlds. But on this here planet, our very own rock, not gonna happen.

The "good fight" for the Hillary people is the McCain one.

Right, Mike. But we won't find that out. Will we? - nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Wil, keep up the good work! It is nice to see another voice out there fighting for the cause. Hillary 2008!

Obama is foolish and uninformed beyond belief - AQ was in Iraq prior to OIF in 03 - Zarqawi (remember him, the beheader, the #3 in AQ, friend of UBL and Zawahiri - Slept many a night with them in Stan, training AQ elements).

Zarqawi was in Northern Iraq working with terrorists groups back in 2002 - A full YEAR before we launched the needed OIF -

Reality is we are not at war with just AQ - But with terrorism itself - Just like in WWII - We were attacked by Japan.....We declared war on Germany days after (not just Japan).

Because we were a serious nation and realized a serious threat. President GWB took the same adult (and correct) view after 9-11 -

Reality is for the first time in over 2000 years, there are beachheads of freedom and the value of self-worth taking root in parts of the Middle East....We are helping to create an atmosphere that will allow for a self-deporation AWAY from radical Islam.

The world is a better place because of this - In the mean time we have correctly taken the fight to our enemies 24/7.....Keeping them on the run....and killing over 3/4 of AQ original leadership.....Along with ditto that percentage of their less-effective replacements.

Heather, polls change. I remember when Guilliani was in the lead for the GOP, until people really got to know the guy. All the polls now say that Barack would do better against McCain. People are sick & tired of Hillary's whining, crying, and negative campaigning. Hopefully she will do the right thing and bow out once she loses Texas & Ohio next week. Obama '08

Jack, you made me laugh. Just glad you didn't want to play footsie in the bathroom like some republicans of late.

Aw, who let the neo-con in here? sheesh!

We can sign-up for an internship, Mike - sure to learn something.

There is no doubt Sadaam's sons, as well as Sadaam, were tyrants. Women and men suffered under his rule. However, there were not only women who were high ranking officials in the Iraq gov., but they were also judges, lawyers, doctors, etc. Many areas of Iraq now enforce muslim law. The many highly educated women in Iraq are afraid to go outside their homes alone, much less hold a position of authority. I just think it is ironic is all. HILLARY 2008!

Proving yet again that anyone foolish enough to think Obama will be some sort of "cream puff" in the face of the usual GOP smears, distortions, whisper campaigns, dirty tricks, character-assassination attempts and despicable Shifty Boating, is in for an extremely RUDE awakening....

Jack, great come back. Laughing my fool head off on this one.

Barack Obama is going to wail the tar out of BOTH George Hussein Bush AND Bush's political Siamese twin John Hussein McCain in November!

BANK IT!

Hillary isn't negative. She just isn't afraid to stand up for things that she believes in, like women's rights, etc. In fact, I like the fact she has a backbone. It is much better than straddling the fence. The way I see it is you have to stand up and fight for change. As Gandhi said, "be the change that you want in the world." You can't do that if you are all hat and no cattle. HILLARY 2008!

I see where Hillary needs to win 65/35 in TX. and OH. to seriously cut into the delegate lead - considering the states ahead where Obama has substantial leads. Are all these fair and sane Hillary supporters willing to cease and desist upon her below these percentages?

Obama IS the status quo right now, and a complete unknown and a neophyte. The people who are fainting and praising him now will be the same people calling for his impeachment and head on a platter a year from his election if by some chance he hoodwinks and bamboozles his way into the Presidency.

The more Obama talks the more obvious it becomes that he isn't qualified to be president..Although this isn't a popular statement to be made on the internet, it is however the feeling I get from most everyone I talk to outside of "cyberspace". I have a hunch that a lot of Hillary supporters will vote for John McCain in November..

HOODWINKING AND BAMBOOZLING IS right. You people are so naive. Rezko will come out after THE DUMB DEMS GIVE HIM THE NOMINATION.

McCain's conclusions about al qaeda in in Iraq is lame and lacks intelligence.

Al qaeda is ONLY IN Iraq because American invaders are in Iraq.

The Shia, who outnumber Sunnis WILL take care of any al qaeda (Sunni) once al Sadr releases his Medi army of insane islamists. lol

The thing with too many old Nervous Systems is that they find it hard to 'change course'.
And so it is with John McCain.

If John wants to go to Iraq and fight for al Sadr Medi Army against Sunni/al qaeda, then we should let him. lol

However, we should bring Americans home; but for guarding and ensuring the flow of oil to the economies of Iraq, USA, and the world.

Wow, Tim, that would be pretty...well, I can't use the word "st--id" and not have the censors delete my post but, that's what it would be...for disgruntled Hillary supporters to vote for George W. McCain. Do you soreheads REALLY THINK that's what Senator Clinton would want you to do? To vote for the old man who will destroy and undo everything Clinton and Obama stand for? Really?

Jeez, talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face....

Scrooge changed but he was likely a whig and not a conservative. Play nice. Peace.

I thought I was the only one who noticed when Obama didn't seem to know that Al Queda was already in Iraq.

It sounds like Obama is saying it's his war or no war. Hmm, sounds like we will just be moving the chess pieces only to maybe move them back. Wake up people - IT'S A DUCK!

Adam, there's a big difference between John McCain and George Bush, and if you studied their lives even you would be intelligent enough to draw this conclusion..You may think you sound real witty with your "George McCain" references but you and I know that you don't know the first thing about politics...

So when did Obama say he was going to strike AQ targets other than today in his answer to MaCain, because I must of missed it.

IS he going to strike AQ before of after he pulls out the troops? He should let us know because I can see anyone calling a strike while you are telling everyone you will stop the war.

Maybe Obama has a new definition of what WAR is, bombing while leaving, I guess he feels when he does that the AQ will all run for the hills and just let our troops leave

Good come back Obama! Oh, wait the're still in Iraq. Now what? Obama needs a reality check.

This is kind of a turn around for Obama, first it was "I'll bring all the troops home from Iraq" now it's "I'll do whats best for Americas interest" He says that he will change Washington but it will probably be the other way around. Washington will change him.

I think Obama just got whipped by his own hyprocrisy. Obama last night "...if we have credible news that al-Qeada is in Iraq, I reserve the rights as president to do what ever necessary to remove them..." What reality is this man living in....Al-Qeada is in Iraq now. Why remove troops, shattered the peace in Iraq to pieces and run troops back in when Al-Qeada re-establish themselves? This is the change we can believe in? This is screams elementary and amatuer foreign affairs experience! When Mccain calls him on it.....he now screams out the past again..."..but but but GW Bush created AlQeada in Iraq...they weren't there before...." how exactly is that a response to Mccain's point? We are talking about today and tomorrow......and he's clueless to the concept that what you do today can avoid what you will have to do tommorrow. Obama, please go back to school and register yourself into a foriegn affairs course or better yet, join the military.

Come on the one's who need a reality check are so called Democrats that if Hillary loses will vote McCain. I support Obama but if he loses I WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY. Why? because McCain is just another version of Neocon 2.0 and is four more years of the Bush administration, Reaganonics, war, and failed economy. Either Democratic candidate will be better for the country and people. Save our nation, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights and VOTE DEMOCRATIC in 2008.

When Obama talks about the main topics he just keeps stepping on his foot. He should just stick to the change message because a lot of his followers won't even notice.

I've studied their politics and the lives of Bush/McCain *vastly* more than you give me credit for, junior, and I know precisely of what I speak.

And yeah, I *do* think my George W. McCain crack is pretty clever! If you hadn't left your sense of humor in dry-dock all those years ago, you'd recognize it too.

McVain just got smacked down! There’s more where that came from. 1) You can bomb AQ targets from the moon – you don’t need boots on the ground for that. 2) Who cares if AQ is in Iraq? The head of the snake is in Afghanistan.
3) It’s time the Iraqis grew some ball bearings of their own. One thing is for certain; the presidential debates will be VERY entertaining. Go Obama!

Saddam did have connection to Al Queda prior to the Iraq Invasion per Tenet "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade," Tenet wrote. "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." In sum, the letter said, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with
growing indications of a relationship with al Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military actions."

What very much concerns me is that in Obama's speeches he denies the fact that Al Qaida was in Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq and goes further and blames the US for them being there now. Obama is either misinformed or buying into the leftists lies about Al Qaida's past associations with Saddam's Iraq. What is even more troubling is that he dismisses the very real threat Al Qaida could pose for the USA should we withdraw from Iraq and let them win the war in Iraq. Talk about pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. An unfettered Al Qaida in Iraq would greatly threaten our security here not to mention the fact we would be reneging on our commitment to the people of Iraq who have placed their lives in jeopardy by supporting us. If we withdraw from Iraq as Obama proposes the killing fields of Cambodia may look like a picnic in comparison and the USA would have let down another people who counted on us. And the left talks about improving the image of the USA. What a crock.

mindlesschange, that tired old dog just won't hunt. Everyone, including the 9/11 Commission, has debunked the bogus pre-9/11 saddam/osama link neocons have been trying unsuccessfully to palm off for years.

Shoot, it's so discredited even old Cheney's not trying to float it any longer....

People forget Obama also said if he had the intelligence reports that the other Senato