SwiftVets.com

[fr11]

What a fool. He just strengthened Bush's case for invading Iraq, especially since Iraq was harboring Al-Zarqawi at the beginning of the invasion. He's now put himself on the same level as UBL for the world's most wanted terrorist. What a fool...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135696,00.html

[Chuck Z Ombie AC2000]

So does that make the war in Iraq offcially the war on terror?
_________________
John Kerry, R.I.P. (Rot In Paris)

[fr11]

[Kimmymac]

Good, I am glad al-zarawhatever made it official. How distressing for Kerry, facts being such stubborn things and all.

They'll just spin it to try to say that our "invading" Iraq pushed al-zarawhatever into allying himself with bin Laden; that if Bush hadn't have gone into Iraq, al-zarawhatthehell wouldn't have stepped up his attacks and would not have formed that alliance.

It is, of course, pure donkey doodoo, but that is how Kerry and his Kronies will try to spin it. I know, it is revolting, but it is my job to know what they will try to say before they even say it. It's terrible; like being a serial killer profiler, one must think like them without becoming like them.

That's why I come to this board. It is my daily sanity check.

[Fort Campbell]

[BuffaloJack]

This master-jerk needs to be removed.
When our boys catch him, and they will, I certainly hope they don't pull the same blunder they did when they caught Saddam. Saddam is still sucking air. They should have killed him not captured him. This goes for UBL and Zarqawi as well. We don't need them languishing in a cell somewhere with the press and the liberals worrying about their welfare. They need to be dead when captured. We won't get any intelligence from these as$hole$ that's of anything more than marginal value, so cut the losses and kill them right away.

[Rdtf]

the kool aid drinkers don't care what it's about now - they are focused on no WMDs and think that Iraq wasn't a threat when we went there. They can't see the obvious big picture, that despite the reasons to get rid of terrorist sponsor Saddam, one of the reasons we went there was a tactical one - to attract all the lowlife terrorists and to keep them away from our home and families here. Like flies on rice they come, we are in their backyard there and it is the easiest point of resistance for them. Our brave men and women are fighting them there, trained to do so, instead of the police fighting them here, on our streets. Why else has there not been another attack here? We have them on the run, and the CIA and FBI are having a chance to do their job.

[CTW]

Great posts here this morning!
Re: Sadamm: The Duelfer report has opened that up very well. Keep your eyes and ears open. Fox is trying to get the story told. I am hoping President Bush will speak about the findings of the report today. It is the October Surprise and it is sneeking up on Kerry.
His contention that sanctions and containment were working were proven wrong. This is a huge scandal and it shows that Sadamm owned France, China, Russia and their votes on the Un Security Council. They had promised they would block the US from attacking him and he believed it. He paid enough for their votes, he thought. He underestimated America. But of course, if Kerry had been president Sadamm would have been right!
Vote!!! CTW

Never Ever Kerry

[Rdtf]

My sister will be at that Bush rally in NJ today - I'll let you know if he says anything important that the MSM chooses not to report.

[ccr]

This is actually a much bigger deal than Iraq.

UBL is very, very big on these oaths. The oath that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad swore to him was a key event in the path to 9-11.

The significance of one terrorist organization swearing allegiance to another -- specifically in this case -- means more than what the MSM is saying.

Essentially, what it means is that UBL now owns Al-Zarqawi and his organization. From here on out, Al-Zarqawi will not be operating independently. He will be doing UBLs bidding.

These allegiance oaths tend to proceed major operations.
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.

http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/

[Rdtf]

That is frightening. Major chill down my spine! I pray that we are prepared mentally and physically for it.

[one more captins mast]

I was aginst allzookerry before I was aginst benloudone

but you can see there were no WMD's just these "oaths" oops

"loaf's " for the poor.

and notwithstanding all that , just a nu/a/sance you see.'''

next question,
_________________
the strange mr aj

[noc]

Zarqawi's Close Ties to Bin Laden Go Back Years, Expert Says

By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com Pacific Rim Bureau Chief
October 18, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the notorious terrorist in Iraq who at the weekend was reported to have affirmed his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, has had close links to the al-Qaeda leader for at least seven years, a terrorism expert said Monday.

A statement posted on Islamic websites, supposedly by Zarqawi, said his Tawhid and Jihad (monotheism and holy war) group had been in contact with bin Laden eight months ago, before dialogue was interrupted.

Communication had since resumed, "and the dignified brothers in al-Qaeda understood the strategy of Tawhid and Jihad," it said, adding that the Zarqawi group's leaders and soldiers announced their allegiance to "the chief of all fighters," bin Laden.

The al-Qaeda leader was "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates," the statement said.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi, 37, has been linked to some of the most gruesome acts of terrorism in Iraq since last year's U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein.

...cont.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200410\FOR20041018b.html


Interesting that the only disagreement between Zarqawi and Bin Laden is that Zarqawi wanted to include shi'ites as targets.