Maybe the Democrats believe that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda (they do, after all, believe lots of nutty things), but they don't seem to have persuaded Al Qaeda.

My own opinion is that al Qaeda is very unwelcome by just about all Iraqis however AQ is useful to various factions in the current civil war.

Once we leave both the Baath and the Shia (who despise the Sunni al Qaeda, and vice versa) would be inclined to exterminate al Qaeda quickly as the foreign interlopers that they are. And since the Iraqis speak Arabic, they will know who is AQ and who is not AQ.

They're not waiting for us to leave, Bill. This is already happening. Sorry to disappoint.

Nice red herring, Rand; I believe most people who question the Iraq-AQ link question its veracity with regard to the justification for going to war in Iraq in the first place. I doubt many, if any, of those same people would contest the fact that AQ is NOW in Iraq (if they do, they are truly morons).

None of those cites in the National Review have the remotest relevance to the pre-war claims that Iraq and AQ were in bed together.

I doubt many, if any, of those same people would contest the fact that AQ is NOW in Iraq (if they do, they are truly morons).

Meet the current Congressional leadership, with their recent attempts to rename the war, and their continuing claims that Iraq has nothing to do with it.

None of those cites in the National Review have the remotest relevance to the pre-war claims that Iraq and AQ were in bed together.

None of them claim to have.

Then why do they need us to get rid of AQ?

They're not waiting for us to leave, Bill. This is already happening. Sorry to disappoint.

The challenge is ascertaining who truly is AQ and who is not. Speaking Arabic helps.

"Maybe the Democrats believe that Iraq has nothing to do with Al Qaeda"

It does now, thanks to the invasion you supported.

"they do, after all, believe lots of nutty things"

Like what?

"but they don't seem to have persuaded Al Qaeda."

Well, one thing's for certain--we know exactly what Bush has persuaded them of.

[Osama bin Laden] calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." -Bush '06

Which side of the aisle has more infidelity?

I believe most people who question the Iraq-AQ link question its veracity with regard to the justification for going to war in Iraq in the first place. I doubt many, if any, of those same people would contest the fact that AQ is NOW in Iraq (if they do, they are truly morons).

So, Andy, what is AQ doing in Iraq now, if they never had any connection with it, if Iraq wasn't the least bit relevant to the "war on terror" (which the Democrats claim is synonymous with "war on AQ")?

Why are they there? Are you suggesting that AQ is led by some idiot Muhammed al-Bush who has dragged them into a quagmire that has nothing to do with their conflict with the US and the West generally?

If the war in Iraq has zero effect on AQ, why is AQ spending lives in Iraq? Why don't they just sit back in their caves and laugh at our troubles with the Shia militia and Baathist wackos?

Surely, Carl, you jest. Clearly, you are an intelligent guy. I hope you're not making the argument that since AQ is in Iraq now, that they must have been in (or connected to/in league with) Iraq prior to the invasion. That is a leap of logic so absurd that it beggars the imagination.

AQ is in Iraq because WE are in Iraq; or, more accurately, because the US invasion provided the conditions under which they could prosecute [another] jihad against us.

I never said the war in Iraq had zero effect in AQ.