John H wrote:

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 22:46:54 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

Regardless of agenda or bias, the premise is basically true. Husseins
capture is unlikely to seriously harm or impact Al Qaeda. The connection -
if any - appears tangental at the most. The only way it can impact Al Qaeda
is to throw a scare into the corrupt states that look the other way as
opposed to ****ing off thier more radical elements.

Iraq wasn't about Al Qaeda and was *never* billed as such. It was billed
(right or wrong) as about WMD. In reality it *was* about throwing a scare
into the hearts of the corrupt govornments of the Middle East, estsablishing
another big, friendly, oil supply to allow us to lean harder on Saudi
Arabia, and to get us a new staging area to squeeze the assholes over there.

The ultimate success (or failure) of that stratagy will take some time to
pan out. Clearly using WMD as the "front story" didn't work out exactly as
intended. Iraq is a pawn in a much bigger chess game - only time will tell
how the game plays out.

-W


"John H" wrote in message
. ..

I didn't address the details of the story, only the 'journalism.'

I find it strange that any time a Bush administration official has a
positive comment, he is telling a lie. Anytime the administration
sources (unnamed) have a negative comment, it is printed as the whole,
total truth. Can you explain that?

For those who missed original post because of this new thread, I've
reposted below:
************************************************** *
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

Poor John. He's become a GOP simpie.



--
Email sent to is never read.