On 9 Jul 2005 18:43:23 -0700, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

I think this was where I came it. Dave said it was
"beneath me" to point this out.

Yes, and I still stand by that. People who bitch about what's being
done here, pointing to London and saying "See? It didn't do
anything!!1!!!!eleven!111!"? Can you see a _bit_ of a logic gap there?

Ah, dave, I see that we've spend a potful of money in iraq.

Yes. Remind me again where that gummint spending gets spent? Oh yeah,
employing USA'ns. So it's not like it evaporates or something, it it,
Jim?

I can see that it doesn't seem to slow down terrorists at
all. The terrorists weren't *in* Iraq.

As Bush said back in one of his state of the union addresses, '02
probably (yes, I can find it if you can't), and I'm going to
paraphrase...

' OK, wow, that really sucked. AQ doesn't like us, a lot. Iraq also
doesn't like us a lot. One of the things that would make this worse is
if the two of 'em get together, because that would really suck even
worse. We need to make sure that doesn't happen '

He didn't say they were connected, he said they needed to be prevented
form doing so. SH had the weapons (you KNOW he had the weapons, Jim, so
don't even), AQ had the operatives. The combination of the two would be
bad. SH is now no longer viable, OBL is in hiding if he's alive, and
the weapons are gone if we're lucky.