Everything the Left Said About the War was Wrong
 

Here is a link to an article talking about how wrong the left was about the war. Its a long read but well worth it.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=7542

That article is chalk full of right wing rherotic. They speak as if the war is over. Its still going on, they havent found any WMD's, etc.

"Furthermore, the destruction of at least two major terrorist training camps in Iraq and the capture of the terrorist leader Abu Abbas in Baghdad have already proven the left was wrong about the Iraq-terror connection (even in advance of what captured Iraqi files and intelligence officials may eventually tell us). "

I don't remember this, can anyone post a link?

"In addition, Saddam had taken spiritual and organizational steps to become part of an international fraternity of terrorists (al-Qaeda in particular) who were determined to attack American civilians at home and abroad. Osama bin Laden’s call for jihad in defense of Iraq, during the war, shows just how tight the fraternity had become."

Doesn't Osama hate Saddam's regime? And stated that in audio tapes?

Anyway, I predict this thread with have the same old tired agruments from both sides.

Those "training camps" were in the Kurdish controlled area of Iraq... WHAT LINKS TO SADDAM????

wow, ,she is about as right wing as they come it seems. I take issue with a great deal she says.

I hope those who have posted don't have to try to make a case of this in court - since a Federal District Court tied them together today:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...7-054105-7452r
WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI) -- A federal judge in New York Wednesday awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown "albeit barely" that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

oh god, she is quoting ONE person and saying that just cuz somebody says something, that somebody's representing an entire faction or group.

BS

Guess she can add the opinion of a Federal District Court

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...7-054105-7452r

I think she makes quite a few valid points. A lot of pre-war predictions made by the anti-war movement never materialized and now they act as though they were on the money.

Ditto for the pro-war movement. Finding WsMD, links between terror and Saddam, etc.
And Liquor Dealer, just because one judge finds in civil court that the families had "shown 'albeit barely' that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida" doesn't mean they are criminally liable. Witness OJ.
EDIT:
Christ, the more I read this article, the more I wonder why you linked it twice. It does more damage to your argument than good. "the standard of proof required for the case was much lower than that in a normal civil action," "Even so, he said that the families had only scraped over the evidential bar," "most of the evidence the families had tried to introduce -- such as TV interviews with unidentified Iraqi defectors -- was 'classically hearsay' or even 'multiple hearsay' -- second or third hand."
This is hilarious!

Abu Abbas was a kiwi fruit farmer (AFAIK) in Baghdad, he condemned violence in the last years and thought of his terroristic activities as an error.
In Isreal a court said that he should not be captured. Remember he is Palestinian and the israelis don't want him...

So he surely is not a "big fish" in the current terror organsations, and to take him as a proof for the "terror connection" i wishful thinking.

A joy of being liberal is never having to say "sorry I was wrong". Better to just carry on to the next object of rightious indignation.

A very joyful congregation indeed.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/p...20030424.shtml

No doubt Abu Abbas will claim he's totally reformed and a man of peace and goodwill now. When American special forces picked him up, he just happened to have with him a few other suspects, several Yemeni and Lebanese passports, and a small arsenal of weapons, including a few rocket-propelled grenades. Hey, it's what every well-dressed man in the Middle East wears.

As for what the AP described as the "sprawling, recently abandoned terrorist training camp south of Baghdad" he'd been running, well, everybody's got to be somewhere.

"conservative news and information"
thanks just what i need...

Oh yeah, I'm always amazed how easily right wingers say "soory, i was wrong"; LD does that all the time.

If you believe that you heard me ever reply to you in any manner that could be interpretted as "I'm sorry" you better go get your ears and eyes tested. When you hear me say "I'm sorry"for anything, one of will have been long dead and buried.

you know "irony", do you?

"Irony" - no but I do know Jack Schitt.

This www.frontpagemag.com is like the conservative version of Fark. Let's see...do I normally get my "factual news" from Fark?

Hmmmm...

As stupid as the whole "trial" was, the decision toppled Mount Olympus!

"Now, Mr. Saddam, you bastard, is it true you gave money to those damn non chrisitans to attack America?"

Frontpage maybe inclined to be conservative but that article hit it right on the head.

When your right your right. Regardless of your viewpoint.

As for Fark. They do link to current news as they break. They link to the Smoking Gun. Obiviouly they are not an all news service but they do link to interesting items that we may normally miss. I did find TFP because of them. Gotta love them for that. Thanks Fark!!

Glad

So wait... lets go over the reasons why we went to war in Iraq and see which of them turned out to be good ones.

1: Get the WMD

Well, we haven't found those yet. Remember the State of the Union, when Bush was totaling up all the thousands of barrels of WMD Saddam had? Where are they?

2: Fight terrorism

We caught one terrorist who hijacked a cruiseliner about 20 years ago. Go us.

3: Saddam is a bastard who terrorizes his own people.

True. The Saudi rulers aren't that nice either. Or the leaders of those central asian republics who we cozied up to after 9/11, one of who (I think Uzbekistan but it might be Turkmenistan) has been called the new Stalin. If we're going to depose every leader who terrorizes his own citizens we have a long way to go. Hey, why don't we start with Ashcroft!

"Why don't we start with Ashcroft?"

I don't think I've heard a better idea in quite a long time.

Hmm. So when I read this thread:

http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....&threadid=5168

and the first four responses, I thought I was seeing kudos to someone for rethinking his opinion, being open to ideas (where ever they come from) and the courage to say "I was wrong". Wasn't that what you meant, LD, by the following?


Turns out what you meant was: 'thanks for coming over the "right" side'.

Doesn't have quite the noble feeling to it...