If you want to see a really good rebuttal of John Edwards' insistence that there was no Al Qaeda connection in Iraq, check out Ann Coulter's article on the subject by clicking HERE.
Ann Coulter. Beautiful and smart too!
Here was my favorite part:
After Dick Cheney had beaten Edwards about the head for a while during the debate, Edwards waved his girlish hands and said: "There are 60 countries who have members of al-Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade?"
The Democrats' silver-tongued boy thought he had made a very clever point. In fact, I believe this is the first time we've gotten any Democrat to admit that the entire al-Qaida terrorist network is not living in a narrow mountainous path between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Democrats are now on the record: 60 countries harbor al-Qaida. But apparently the one nation that had managed to entirely purge itself of all al-Qaida members was Iraq – under the great statesman Saddam Hussein! Iraq is the only country in the world liberals believe was hermetically sealed from al-Qaida.
Not only would the Democrats not have attacked Iraq, they would have given Saddam Hussein an award for having so thoroughly rid his nation of al-Qaida members. (And I know these Democrats are very proud of their superior manicures, but someone should tell Edwards to keep those girlish hands down.)
Hoo Hoo! That's good stuff! Keep it coming, Ann!
And with that, I'm signing off to watch debate #2! Have a great evening!
2 comments:
Hey there, Jed. Hope you're enjoying the debates. Read your post, and I must confess that I don't get the point about the Ann Coulter quote.
First of all, I dispute her implication that the Saddam Hussein government had significant ties with Al-Qaeda. Check out this link from the State Dept. under Bush from Nov. of 2001 identifying countries where Al-Qaeda operates: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm -- you'll notice that Iraq is not included. Second of all, the 9/11 commission said that what links there were were minimal and there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, which Cheney was forced to admit on Tuesday night.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that there was some connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, I don't see how Coulter addresses Edwards' point. The 9/11 hijackers did a lot of their planning in Hamburg, Germany. Paraguay has a nest of Al-Qaeda cells, according to an artcle in the New Yorker I read some time ago. And of course, Saudi Arabia's royal family and Pakistan's intelligence agency include a lot of Al-Qaeda sympathizers.
Given that invasion of a country is a pretty grave decision, and that 60 countries have Al-Qaeda activity, does Coulter's mocking tone imply that we should invade them all? Who would do all this invading, the National Guard reservists having their tours of duty involuntarily extended? If not, then what is her point? I mean, if ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, as weak as they were justify an invasion of Iraq, then why not invade 60 countries?
HP, sorry it took so long to respond. I've been kind of swamped lately.
I think that Coulter's point was primarily that she doesn't believe that Al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq. I don't think that she was trying to answer Edwards' point. As you pointed out, she was mocking him. She did that repeatedly and without reserve.
As for your question, I don't think that she was suggesting that we invade all 60 countries in which Al Qaeda is operating. I don't think that she was saying that at all.
Edwards showed his weakness when he blurted the statement that you quoted. I believe that he said that because he knew that he had been defeated on this point and wanted to muddy the water. If he truly believes that the Bush doctrine would lead us to invade all of the countries where Al Qaeda is operating, he has been drinking too much Kool Aid at the Democrats' HQ. I personally don't think that Edwards believes this is the current administration's plan, but he had to raise the fear level in order to score any points.
Finally, I believe that Mr. Cheney's answers very clearly pointed to the fact that regardless of Al Qaeda's direct involvement with Saddam Hussein (or lack thereof), the war against Iraq was STRATEGICALLY important to the Bush plan in the war on terror. I discussed this idea im more detail in another post that I made the same time that this one was made.
Post a Comment