Of course, we might have forseen this, had there been any real analysis of what would happen post-invasion Iraq; but that was sorely lacking.

Do you really believe that the terrorist training camps in Afganistan, Pakistan and elsewhere only turn out al Queda?

And finally, I suppose the numerous air strikes Clinton executed against Saddam, including the one he ordered while being impeached and which RepubliCONs said “We support our troops but we don’t support this!” slipped your mind.

I’m sure this point simply slipped your mind (or attention), but it does seem to me that it is relevant to the discussion here.

Final point: If Zarqawi wasn’t working on ricen (sp?) or nuclear or cyanide or whatever, what was he doing in Iraq? Having tea and crumpets with Saddham each day? I didn’t think so.

So, it is established he was in Iraq. It is established that he was already part of the al Qaida network (he and Masri trained together in 2000, I believe, in Afghanistan). He was not working alone in Iraq. Why was he there, at that time?

al Qaida was nowhere to be found in Iraq before the war…GW screwed up big time by not taking al Zarqawi out when he had the chance in 2002, when has was in Iraq helping Hussein with his riesen (sp?) and nuclear programs…Was he not there before the war…or was he there and we didn’t take him out when we had the chance?

is, as usual, illogical and disingenuous.

Zarqawi was there. Working with Saddam on ricen or nuclear programs is… doubtful. The key point is that al Queda was not in Iraq before we invaded. However, Zarqawi was, and it was well known that he was heading a terrorist organization that eventually, seeing an opportunity to harm the West, hooked up with al Queda after we invaded.

So, the real question is, why didn’t we take Zarqawi out when we had the chance? Of course, this question points to the inept administration and their failures, so let’s just point-fingers, engage in semantic debate, and change the subject.

Now Carlos, I know its hard for you to see past your bias and ignorance, but even you should be able to understand that change happens, and Zarqawi changed his tactics once Saddam was deposed. The stumbling block must be that you’d have to admit the incredible blunders this administration has made, and the unimagineable costs that we’re going to have to pay for the foreseeable future.

Funny how conservatives like to make a mess, spend billions to clean it up, and then take credit for cleaning up the mess ignoring it was they who made the mess in the first place.

What ever happened to traditional conservative values?

On the one hand, they still claim al Qaida was nowhere to be found in Iraq before the war, and never were. It was Bush who caused the influx of (foreign) terrorists into that country, and we had to pay the price for that.

Now, they are also claiming that GW screwed up big time by not taking al Zarqawi out when he had the chance in 2002, when has was in Iraq helping Hussein with his riesen (sp?) and nuclear programs. GW apparently knew exactly where he was, yet paased up the chance to take him out.

So, which one is it? Was he not there before the war, and came running to help lead against the evil invaders from the West, or was he there and we didn’t take him out when we had the chance? Can’t have it both ways, ya know.

Apparently, the sophistication of the al-Qaida terrorist network ends where information flows begin. While the better half of the free world was celebrating the death al-Zarqawi yesterday, al-Qaida’s No.2 henchman, Ayman al-Zawahri, was busy producin…

Waking up this morning, I never would have thought that the number 1 2 most wanted terrorists would be dead by the afternoon. The heroic men and women of the US armed forces get credit for the top hit, Abu

From Part 1: For the vast majority of Americans — and Westerners in general — news of Zarqawi’s death is cause for celebration. But in the darkest corners of the blogosphere, where the illiberals lurk, the death of Zarqawi takes

For the vast majority of Americans — and Westerners in general — news of Zarqawi’s death is cause for celebration. But in the darkest corners of the blogosphere, where the illiberals lurk, the death of Zarqawi takes on a different

Father of man believed to be beheaded by al-Zarqawi sees no good in terrorist leader’s death