The Obama Doctrine

Shame on the New York Post for being, well, the New York Post.

Good one.... that. Loved it Buckeye.

Have a problem with defeatism. Regardless, he'll not drag us down, unless you let him.

sneilarreal,Very interesting reading and some good points made. We are heading down a slippery hill toward third world status and I certainly don't foresee any of our so called allies pitching in to help. Believe it or not we are at war with the extemists who are spreading around the globe. I was in favor of keeping them focused on Iraq so we would have them in a centralized location but I expect us to be spread ever thinner as time goes by. I just hope those countries who hold our IOU's don't call them in or our nation will be bankrupt. It sickens me to see our President apologizing to other world leaders. I don't think we should feel the need to apologize to anyone as we have always been at the forefront of any crisi that came up for people the world over. Our generosity is unmatched by any other country in the world and I don't think we should provide credibility to places such as Cuba, Venezuela,Iran,etc.

txworkingman,

Rightfully or not, the US is seen as aggressive and selfish by many countries and peoples. It's in US interests to gain allies. If apologizing is what is called for in order to keep the standing we have and not regress into an innefectual nation on the world stage than by all means I say apologize. And whether people choose to admit it or not, there have been many actions taken by the US which have hurt those we would wish to be our allies.

I think Rush has changed their views since the early '80s....

See "Workin' them Angels" live on youtube.

You think Neil still worships Ayn Rand??

Speaking of Rush, what a coincidence ... Vapor Trails is playing on my iTunes right now ...

The New York Post's only purpose is to provide material to line your birdcage. To you survivalists with outhouses the Post make mighty good a$$wiping material.

Seriously, Jeff... you are a laugh riot!

Yeah, Jeff, it MUST be true, by gosh.

Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst.

What else needs to be said?

Lots. Ralph Peters happens to be a former Colonel in the US Army and was in fact very critical of Bush during the pre-surge period of the Iraq war. Do you also criticise by implication Bob Shrum, Ellis Henican or Alan Colmes? Or does it depend on who is being criticised?

These days you're unpatriotic if you fault Obama or don't want to pay more taxes to fund changing America.

Waynester...

You just don't get it, do you?

Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst.

First, what the heck kind of job title is that? Strategic... for what? Propaganda?

Second, this Op-Ed was in the NY Post... which, like Fox News, is a Murdoch media outlet. It's just a promotional piece designed to funnel viewers to FNC.

Are you really that much of a moron? Peters is a strategic analyst due to his military experience. Military strategy, get it? Just like Kirsten Powers is a Democratic strategist who is also a Fox News contributor. Peters says what he believes regardless of who his employer happens to be and like I said before he has been very critical of Bush in the past. C'mon, man, you're smarter than that....aren't you?

Waynester...

The art of the rhetorical escapes you, I guess. The comment was a lead-in to the meat of my post, which immediately followed. Read it again, slowly:

Strategic... for what? Propaganda?

Second, this Op-Ed was in the NY Post... which, like Fox News, is a Murdoch media outlet. It's just a promotional piece designed to funnel viewers to FNC.

Do I have to spell it out for you? You're smarter than that... aren't you?

By the way, you can disagree with me without resorting to name-calling. You have that ability, right? I would hate to think that I've been over-estimating your talents.

It's just a promotional piece designed to funnel viewers to FNC.

If that's what you really think I feel sorry for you. If that's an example of your analytical abilities you are in fact a sad case. And I didn't call you any names, I merely asked a question, which has been answered by your response.

Waynester:

If that's what you really think I feel sorry for you.

Oh, thank you... thank you. I truly need your pity.

If that's an example of your analytical abilities you are in fact a sad case.

Again, many thanks. You've just saved me a fortune in therapy bills.

And I didn't call you any names, I merely asked a question,

Technically, you are correct. You posted:

Are you really that much of a moron?

... and that certainly wasn't 'name-calling' in its purest form.

Kinda like if I ask you if you plan on spending your precious time on Newsvine in the role of an asshat...? (question mark added for clarity)

Our standing in the world has been bolstered

Show me evidence. Iraq violence is increasing. Pakistan is in big trouble. Show me the evidence that his appologizing is helping.

Brent, Iraq and Pakistan in big trouble this is Obama's fault how? Guess it was not a good idea to go to war against Iraq in the first place. Pakistan is a totally different situation altogether but then again maybe not. Taliban is reenergized after we turned our back on Afganistan without completing the mission. Pakistan received so much financial incentive from our country maybe they received big incentives from others as well. They are a nation without stability. Tough times. Apologizing for past misdeeds was not an attempt to fix the world problems but to acknowledge what everyone already new and an attempt to restore our moral authority.

teresa, I was questioning the qoted statement (and still do).

Keep blaming Bush for everything, it's got you this far....

Brent, Keep explaining everything bad as Obama's fault with whatever flawed reasoning necessary maybe it will serve you well, I am not sure. Standing in the world is nt the same as world peace. They are two seperate entities.

Brent, show me evidence that Iraq violence is increasing? And yes, I know there have been a number of news stories reporting bombings in the last few weeks , but are you positive that those numbers are different than last month, the last few? Do you think you have access to all the information available?

Is it possible that you're taking what the media feeds you and regurgitating; all while not comprehending the fact that there is more going on (in the world) without your knowledge, or the media's appetite?

Brent, show me evidence that Iraq violence is increasing? And yes, I know there have been a number of news stories reporting bombings in the last few weeks

Looks like you answered your own question, but take it from Obama if your still not satisfied:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/29/obama-uptick-in-iraq-violence-wont-affect-withdrawal-plans/

teresa, you're dodging (surpirze?). Show me proof that "Our standing in the world has been bolstered", as CCarm said and you are defending. (crickets chirping)

Again, please provide proof that this is an "increase". In my opinion, an increase means a sustained escalation, not a peak, or a burst -- for all we know, next week could be an extreme low point, and then will you claim it's a decrease?

BTW, I think when discussing a war, casualties or deaths you need to be a little more cautious of the words used -- and I don't mean political correctness -- but in the context of increasing or decreasing violence we need to gauge the situation as a whole and not separately.

For instance, the UK just recently (in the past few weeks) removed ALL (that we know) of it's military personal -- could this "increase" be due to fewer authority figures in key areas?

You're also not grasping the concept that the media conveys only so much information, regardless of the 24/7 news cycle, some stories are pushed far more than others -- leaving a void of information, and therefore a lot of public speculation.

teresa, you're dodging (surpirze?). Dodging what? (surpirze??????)

Show me proof that "Our standing in the world has been bolstered", as CCarm said and you are defending. People frequently confuse proof with opinion. No effigies of Obama being burned or U.S. flags that I am aware of. Certainly it has not happened with the frequency of recent past. I would guess that Fox would report these episodes. The world is watching and the response thus far has been mostly positive. It is a step in the right direction. It will take time to repair our image but the President is taking some good steps to let other countries know that we will take the moral high ground. Time will provide proof whether this will or will not beneficial. This new direction could be what helps. Other than the right wingers and FNC I have not seen derogatory effects of this on going mission. We Americans are sometimes our own worst enemies. Denial, distortion, avoidance, lying, arrogance, and laws be damned is not the way to ensure that our standing improves; of this I am fairly certain. The moral high ground which is many times the most difficult task is always better.

(crickets chirping) I hate the sound of crickets myself. Maybe it means something that I am not aware of.

Provide me proof that President Obama has further weakened our standing in the world. Thus far you have only been dodging. (surprize).

Okief, we can agree that a spike may not be indicative of the future. It looks Al-Qaida is trying to cause a problem, Hillary talked about it yesterday or the day before, saying that they are trying to disrupt our ability to hand over power. I do not trust the media to give us the whole story without some form of bias. Time will tell.

Teresa, I was questioning a statement made by an Obama supporter and you questioned me. I know what an opinion is; I am not confused. Thanks for actually answering the question this time. You think kissing the world's a$$ is what we need to do? Fine, that's your opinion-not mine. I for one, do not feel the need to defend ourselves for "defending ourselves". Obama and the left railed about the pictures from Abu-Grahib and the torture memo's becoming a "terrorist recruitment tool", yet he continues to recruit terrorosts by promising to release more pictures-You can't have it both ways. He selectively releases memos to say "Bush tortured" while keeping the "torture worked and saved LA" memos classified. Hmmmmm.....
You will have your opinion and I will have mine. Do you ever wonder why he has changed his stance on (war) issues since taking office?

some people in your words continue to kiss the world's a$$ while others continue to kiss Limbaugh's, Foxes and crews a$$ and in other cases(like mine) they select none of the above. Like they say variety is the spice of life. What you have assumed about what I did not say is wrong which is typically the case with an assumption. You really don't know enough about me to justify assuming anything about me. I do take exception to your comment that President Obama recruits terrorists. That statement is not worthy of a response because it is so outside the realm. It bears repeating that sometimes Americans are America's biggest obstacle..

Approval rating in the high 60's before his first year...sounds like EVERY president in their first year. Take a look at poll averages from bush in his first year, High 50's and Low 60's through the first year.

You cannot judge based on numbers now, just on policies. Drop the polls and start thinking long term consequences (that includes rewards) for yourselves.

Wish I could ling the site, but here is a text....go to pollingreport.com

What you're practicing is political spin.

To wit: There are Islamic terrorists, just as there are "insert Religion" terrorist. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes and colors and --gasp!-- religions.

Fanaticism and Extremism is the death of all ideology, philosophy, and peace.

No, he's on that side of the world. Are you?

I am not practising Political spin friend. I am just saying terrorism exists we can not deny it, to say it does not is a insult to its victims.

. I am just saying terrorism exists we can not deny it, to say it does not is a insult to its victims.

Tell that to Janet Napalitano.

Oh my Brother Servant 43, this post is nearly as slanted as the Post's story. President Obama had millions of people align with him because of the lies and deception and mockery of our constitution under a KGB style government. You are assuming that you know the hearts of men by judging Obama not to be a Christian because he supports abortion. You cast me into that by saying that perhaps I am not a Christian. Obama and I do not support "abortion", so please don't put words into our mouths. We support Pro-choice. I shudder at the thought of abortion and would choose it as an option in my personal life or if one of my children were faced with that decision, yet I am not so all-knowing and wise that I would force my oppinions on all and frankly sir, neither are you. Christians are against lying, coveting, adultry and homosexuality, so do you want legislation that throws the clergy in jail for lying, the music director in jail for being a homosexual, and the congregation that covets the goods and riches of the big tythers? NO! You don't want that and this issue of if you believe in free will, choice, then you are not a Christian and you support abortion is a crock. You can not legislate morality and even our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ says we all have a free will to accept Him or not and to attempt to live a live like He lived. He also says it's not possible to be without sin, even after you're saved, so don't accidentally become a blasphemist and hold yourself up to Jesus as white as snow and without blemish.

No other religion today that I know of forces its followers to believe under penalty of death other than the Muslims. Why?

If this is true, why do you think we need to force Christians, Muslims, Jews, Gentiles, etc...to believe that Pro-Choice is believeing in abortion and that there should be a law to stop it. It won't stop it, just like drug laws don't stop drug abuse and speeding laws don't stop speeding.

servant... if you really want to know what Obama believes and practices follow this link

http://www.huna.org/html/hgospel.html

Let me just say this: My daughter (who is American) and her Swedish husband live in Sweden with my two grandsons. The older grandson was swimming and got out too far into the water. My daughter could swim, but a large wind came up, and she was actually frozen, not knowing what to do. A Muslim man jumped in and pulled my grandson out of the water and to safety.

On the bank of the lake, there was a bee of which my daughter has always been afraid since she got stung quite a few times. The Muslim man asked if he should kill it and she said, "no." He asked why he should not kill it if she was afraid of it. She told him that she did not believe in killing something just because she was afraid of it. I think there is a lesson here for all of us. We can live in fear, we can kill in fear, or we can live in peace with our fellow men, which, by the way, Jesus did.

servant-43: Yes, a lot of people hate it when you tell them the truth (lesbians, gays, if you have made a mistake and tell the truth), if you have hit someone's car, broken one of their windows, or stolen from them.

Also, there is nothing in the Bible about abortion. If you have anything in there about it, let me know so I can read it. So-called Christians, I found, are not what they should be. I know. I was the member of a church where I found that a lot of them say one thing and do another...adultery, gossip, drink, cheat other Christians out of money. I lent money to a girl perfectly capable of repaying it. Did she? No, and since I am a Christian, I am not supposed to ask for it to be returned.

I am not pro-abortion, and I am a Christian, though I no longer attend church because of the fact that there are more liars there than there are outside the church.

servant 43: If part of your family is Muslim and you are a Christian, then why are you not dead?

Jeff: I know the difference between Muslim extremists and Muslims. We have extremists here on the Newsvine who are trying their best to destroy America with words if not actions.

Margaret - I am not dead because God protects me.

First, I would pray to God to deliver you to a good church. I would encourage you to join a smaller church. But find a pastor that teaches what they practice. Find a church that tells the truth as given to us by Jesus. If a pastor tells you something they can not support with the Bible or if the Bible contradicts their specific teaching then find another church. In the New Testament, there are whole chapters devoted to finding a good pastor and being on the look out for false teachers. If a pastor changes any part of the gospel of Jesus then they are a false prophet and should be ignored. Jesus was a man and God. Jesus was the truth. Jesus was only Good. Jesus died for our sins on the cross. Jesus was resurrected on the third day. Jesus loves everyone. The Bible is always true and never contradicts itself. Jesus is the only way to heaven- not good works, nothing you can do except just believe in Jesus. Make sure they believe in Heaven, Hell, Satan, the Trinity, and angels.

You see you will believe in a great many things. But some beliefs will change your life. If you believe a glass of milk is ok to drink you will drink it. If you believe snakes do not make good bed-fellows you will avoid them when you are sleepy. If you believe Jesus is God your life will be transformed and the sanctification will begin. You will feel sadness for all your sins. You will want nothing but to be surrounded by fellow believers.

Do not look for a church of similar people like you. The Bible tells us the church is like a human body. If you join a church of similar people, then you will get a church with only hands or only feet. Many different people make up a good church.

And remember that wicked people will always be with us on this earth. Our job is not to punish them, but to lovingly tell them (with the aid of the Bible) where their mistakes are. If and only if they refuse to repent (admit being wrong and apologize) then to release them back into the world to allow God to work in their lives to bring about correction. As soon as they repent, we are to allow them back into the church as long as the sin does not continue. If you are unsure something is a sin, look to the Bible and pray, God will answer you with the truth. I promise.

You have to read the Bible everyday. You have to meditate on it and study it. God’s relationship with you is one built on a foundation of communication. God told the early Biblical writers to write down the gospels so we could benefit from them.

Sins are sins until we become Christians. During our Christian walk sins become mistakes and only become sins again if we are unrepentant in our sins. If we refuse God's laws then we refuse God Himself.

To answer the question :Abortion in the Bible (or as some like to call it Pro-Choice).

To make the choice over another’s life (or death) is a supreme power. Just because we have the ability to kill does not make it right or justified. Even if you sacrifice one life to save another, we will all have to account for our actions someday.

Please read the Bible looking for how God feels about killing children. Leviticus 18:21, states we should not sacrifice them for religion or gods. The story of Abraham tells us that even Abraham (who God said was righteous) could not sacrifice his son Isaac to the Jewish God. 2Kings 21:6 says that it is evil to sacrifice children. Ezekiel 23:39 tells us God is not happy to have children sacrificed. So we know that God is angry when we kill our children as a sacrifice.

Isaiah 46:3 states that God upholds us since our conception. This gives us truth that we are children of God before birth.

God created us in the belly of a woman for His purposes. We are His children. God never intended that human life would be stopped. God makes the pregnancy last nine months for a reason. So we can prepare not so the baby can grow. God could have made pregnancy last one day. He made it last so long also so we can be tested. Those that take the seemingly easy way out, only later find out how hard their life becomes. Just ask a woman that has had an abortion how they feel about it years later. The emotional scares are with them forever.

And finally, to those that continue to say that abortion is not a sin because it is not in the Bible, I would like to know where it specifically says in the bible that abortion is not a sin. When did God ever say that killing your own children was a good act? When did God ever say we would be better off with fewer children? Never.

God is very angry that we through the greatest gifts He has given us down the drain quite literally. He should be angry. But remember that anger does not mean hate. God loves us but He hates our wicked decisions.

I am no better than a sinner myself. I can not judge anyone and I feel sympathy for anyone who is in a position of being a judge. But I will not lie about the truths that God has given me just to make someone else feel better about continuing to commit horrible sins onto another human being that can never have a choice in this world. Babies deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the moment they are given that life by God. And only God should take away a babies life if He so wishes. Who among you will be so bold as to replace God in His seat of judgment? Who among you has never sinned? We need to find ways to stop sin. Just because others have sinned, it does not make your future sins justified.

Remember that life after this earth goes on into heaven for some people. Be a person willing to protect God's gifts and blessings as much as you possibly can. Speak out for God now and God will speak out for you later. Speak against God now and God will just ignore you later.

This is God's love in our lives. Parents love their children so they give them what they need and not always what they want. Parents discipline their children out of love to help them grow into good people. Parents teach their children the truth because they love them. Parents that lie to their children or are too lazy to find the truth for their children are not very loving. Only your enemies would be too lazy to help you or would lie to you.

May God Bless you with His truth.

Jeff, liberals are destroying America? I disagree. Radicals are tearing away at the foundation of America, whether they be radical conservatives, which you appear to be from your not-very-well-thought-out-post, radical liberals, radical or extremist anything. This nation was built on the premise that All men have certain inalienable rights and freedoms. This nation was built, or stolen, by immigrants from all over the world. I'm sure the native Americans wish they had a better form of immigration laws, but we have the freedoms that we have because our forefathers desired something different from all the nations they came from.

To servant 43, your later post helps mitigate the judgement of your first. I agree that all folks should take a hard study of the teachings of Jesus Christ. They were love, longsuffering, forebearance, forgiveness and repentence. His laws are tender and for very good cause; He made us in His own image. he made us higher than angels, with a freewill to experiment through our senses, to have emotions, to understand that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. He did not manifest Himself in the flesh to condemn man for sins but to save man from sins, so that we might not perish. God gave all men and women a free will to choose the paths that they would explore and He did not mandate nor force His teachings on man but offerred it up along with Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. God has not finished His work on man or on earth. For it is appointed for all men to die and we will all die.

You stated in your last post, "

To make the choice over another’s life (or death) is a supreme power. Just because we have the ability to kill does not make it right or justified. Even if you sacrifice one life to save another, we will all have to account for our actions someday." And someday all will give that account if their name is written in the Lamb's Book of Life.

You also stated, "Margaret - I am not dead because God protects me." I would add that your appointed time has not yet come. I hate the thought of abortion, as I stated earlier and I typographically erred and said I would choose that option but was clearly speaking to the fact that I would NOT opt for abortion as a choice for my own life nor, God forbid, one of my underage children became pregnant, but that is based on my beliefs and my circumstances. If my daughter became pregnant she has the moral, social and financial support to have the child and I would support the rearing of my grandchild and not condemn my daughter for her sex out of wedlock, but not all circumstances are as bright as hers, not all pregnant girls or ladies have a support system like what I provide and I can not be so judgemental to expect that my philosophy and religous and social/moral views on this are the only option or choice that should be extended to someone that I know nothing about.

Thus the term, "Pro-Choice" and not "Pro-Abortion". Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged." If you are doing the work of God in your church you should not be out ministering to the "Good Christians" in the community but to the crack addict, the prostitute, the gangster thug. Jesus said He was the Great Physician and He did not come to heal the healthy but to aid the sick. If you come across a pregnant female in your personal ministry, try not to turn them off to God by preaching condemnation and false doctrine but rather show her love and encouragement and help her find help to have and raise her child or to get to an adoption agency so that she does not have abortion. I promise you this will work better than making a law that prohibits or removes the choice of abortion. There will be scads of back ally abortion clinics just like the underground drug world.

Yes, AJ-344016, you have made sane, reasoned discussion points. I'm sure the right will now start to crucify you.

AJ: I agree with you whole-heartedly. Obama is not a stupid man, and WILL take care of all this mess. After all the misinformation everyone has been given, even President Obama has to find out the truth for himself before he can do anything. Makes sense to me.

Not so, it is your own.

Comrade Obama loves communist dictators like Chavez because he is of the same ilk. He wants the federal government to be in charge of everything because deep down he hates capitalism and free enterprise which have made this country great. Why else would he want to take over companies like GM and Chrysler ?

And why else would he say something so radical as, “to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector.”

“If you could tell me right now that when I walked into this office that the banks were humming, that autos were selling, and that all you had to worry about was Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, getting health care passed, figuring out how to deal with energy independence, deal with Iran, and a pandemic flu, I would take that deal,”

The audacity.

Bill Dragomir, that's a twisted interpretaion to put it gently. Kennedy met with Kruezchev, Nixon did, Reagan met with Gorbechav, we've been trading with Communist China for decades (Which is ruining American Industry). You have such a one sided and putrid arguement here. I don't know if you just pulled your head out of the sand but capitalism, unbridled and unregulated capitalism, just created one of the worst economic declines in history. George Bush begged for the TARP passage because of imminent danger of collapsing the world financial markets. He nationalised several banks and AIG. The Bush administration became owners of free enterprise companies and now you are spouting off typical radical neocon gaga and casting Obama as a communist and hating free enterprise? Those are old and dead republican talking points to try to regain power through dividing a nation. He doesn't want to take over anyauto companies and he is mandating that they come up with real 21st century business plans if they want government loans, otherwise he will let them go into bancruptcy and reorganize on their own. The man is sagaciously trying to preserve the industry and their jobs but he is not going to hand them a blank check. Free enterprise is a system whereby companies prosper and succeed and the country follows suit, including the middle class. It allows the poor to rise into the middle class by working or becoming business owners. Free enterprise does not allow the big businesses to prosper and the government to prosper off of the backs of poor and middle class. That results in a large poor population, a relatively non-existent middle class and 5% of the nation owning the wealth therefore casting most as mere serfs and the rest as Lords and Barons. That is old English philosophies and what we fought our war of independence for. You obviously are not that uneducated to believe the statement you just made and if you do you sir are as radical as the Islamic Extremists that we are at war with.

You really shouldn't lie, but I guess with that name it's to be expected. Bush fabricated nothing.

That WMD's claim and al-Qaeda in Iraq were false.

This has been gone over umpteen times. If Bush lied so did a number of Democrats as well as the intelligence services of several nations. And the war was not fought over WMD stockpiles alone, but also over the WMD programs and Saddam's association with and support of terrorists.

See this snopes finding for a collection of quotes from Democrats concerning Iraq's WMD.

Read this article for an overview of Saddam Hussein's connections to Al Qaeda.

Read this book or see this site for a complete picture of the adminstration's rationale for invading Iraq

He had no WMD's and WMD program. Read the Duelfer report.

Saddam had no links to al qaeda.

Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons. To make his oil buddies rich and to make his weapon contractor buddies rich.

Wrong, Squidward. That "oil buddies" bull won't wash. That's a tired and shopworn shibboleth. We can debate the merits of going into Iraq or how the war was conducted, but let's not trade in trite bumper-stickerisms.

Saddam did have WMD's and a WMD program ... he may have stopped the program before we thought he did, but all intel from the US, Israel, and the UK, and the UN, pointed to the fact that he had at one time an aggressive program and did have WMD's. Just because we didn't find WMD's doesn't mean they did not exist at one time. Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada, who I have met personally, has detailed Saddam's handling of WMDs (and where he got rid of them) in his book, "Saddam's Secrets."

Did his oil buddies and weapon contractor buddies get richer because of the Iraq war?

Just because we didn't find WMD's doesn't mean they did not exist at one time

Such a precedent would give every country in the world to accuse other countries in the world of having WMD's. If Saddam had WMD's, why couldn't Duelfer find any? Maybe because Saddam didn't have any. Sada makes claims that are not independently verifiable, therefore he shouldn't be the sole authority on such an issue.

He's not. Others have alleged that Saddam managed to spirit the WMDs out of Iraq in the months before the invasion. Syria and Lebanon are the two places mentioned as final resting places. Likely, we'll never know.

But, since we never found the WMDs, many people can feel justified (with good reason) in saying they never existed.

The intel was incomplete and too often inaccurate. Which is why so much of this was a screw-up.

Hi Tom, well put. Nice to see this place hasn't changed much since I've been away :)

Yes Tom, I agree with your assessment

Saddam had no links to al qaeda.

From Hayes article linked above:

We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.

All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it. Just two weeks ago, President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq. Among his key points: Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror that began on September 11. Bush spoke in very general terms. He did not mention any of this new information on Iraqi support for terrorism to make his case. That didn't matter to many journalists and critics of the war.

CNN anchor Carol Costello claimed "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda." The charitable explanation is ignorance. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat who serves as vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, knows better. Before the war he pointed to Zarqawi's presence in Iraq as a "substantial connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." And yet he, too, now insists that Saddam Hussein's regime "had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al Qaeda."

Such comments reveal far more about politics in America than they do about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship.

Read the Duelfer report.

Interesting editorial concerning the Duelfer report from October 2004 here. Excerpt:

The question of Bush’s good faith should be put to rest by the report, which reveals that Saddam’s generals were shocked when the dictator told them on the eve of war that Iraq did not any longer possess its WMD stockpile. If even top Iraqi generals thought the stockpiles existed, it is rather difficult to fault George Bush for not knowing the truth. Would a President John Kerry have known any better? Of course not. So the question resolves itself to this: Do Americans want a president who will act decisively against a threat that virtually every piece of information indicates is real?

Whatever the state of Iraq’s WMD program in March 2003, the report makes clear that Saddam intended to resume it when the sanctions were gone. He retained the scientific capacity and the facilities to do so. If he had WMD in the past (as we know he did), and was going to seek it in the future, many thoughtful Americans will conclude that the period when he did not have it was but a fleeting moment that does not invalidate Bush’s broader point. They may even conclude that March 2003 was a fortuitous time to act. Does John Kerry now think that it would have been better to wait until Iraq’s WMD program was reconstituted and American troops had to come under fire from massed chemical artillery strikes?

Further, the Duelfer Report makes it clear that the sanctions were tottering on the verge of total collapse. This point is particularly important given the previous conclusion. Saddam had successfully suborned several foreign governments, including Russia’s and France’s. He had also completely subverted the U.N. Oil-for-Food program, funneling millions of dollars into his own coffers and those of the Iraqi military. These disclosures seriously undercut John Kerry’s position in at least two ways. First, they lay bare the unmitigated folly of relying on France and the United Nations to determine the direction of American foreign policy. Second, it is difficult to persuade voters of Kerry’s (newest) position, that war was a mistake because the sanctions were working, if the sanctions were obviously about to stop working.

Well-done, Waynester!

Yes, but don't you see? The left hates Dubya.

He did not mention any of this new information on Iraqi support for terrorism to make his case

Why didn't he? Doesn't that tell you something about the new "information"?