Which is to say, good news from Iraq.

In addition to showing real progress (Sunnis killing Al Qaeda), it also undermines the mantra that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, since he had been there pre-removal of Saddam.

[Update a few minutes later]

K-Lo questions the timing:

...how long can it take for Rove-planned-it for a veto-backdrop story theories?

it also undermines the mantra that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, since he had been there pre-removal of Saddam.

Do we have any evidence that Al Masri was working with Saddam? There were Al Qaeda in Florida, too, but I'm pretty sure Jeb Bush and GW Bush had nothing to do with them.

The last time I checked (and I currently live there) Florida was not a police state (despite ravings from the trolls). I'm pretty sure that Al Qaeda wasn't setting up large terrorist training camps here.

I can guarantee you that if Saddam didn't want them there, they wouldn't have been there.

You beat me to it, Roy.

Interesting to note as well than several/any of the AQ-related training camps were located within the northern/southern no-fly zones, where Saddam couldn't get to them (fast enough to make a difference, anyway).

For the millionth time, simply b/c the Al-Q forces were in the no-fly zones did not mean that Saddam could not get to them.

Indeed, in 1997, as the Kurds were engaging in civil war (remember, this is all within the no-fly zone), Iraq dispatched army units into the Kurdish zones to tip the balance in favor of one side.

The idea that the no-fly zones (which simply meant no aircraft could fly through them) applied to ground forces is to completely misrepresent reality.

But, hey, if you wanna believe that Saddam's country was just like Bush's Amerikkka, have at it.

It's always good to know that one or more Al-Qaeda guys have been bumped off. Just keep in mind that:

(a) Al-Qaeda have never shown a problem in restaffing their positions. Zarkawi's death was supposed to be great stuff; didn't change much on the ground overall.

(b) Our being in Iraq appears to be a major motivator for Moslem youth to turn radical. If you don't believe this look at polls in majority Islamic countries on how they feel about the Iraq project. So the source of recruits is highly accelerated by our presence in Iraq. (Why they don't trust us to make them "better people" is another subject...)

(c) In the end, Sunnis killing Al-Qaeda while a very good thing, is a far cry from our plan for Iraq. When the Sheiks in Anbar are working with the Shiites in Baghdad towards a united Iraq, then we can really celebrate. Question A: would the Sheiks and Shiite militias not kill Al-Qaeda irrespective of whether we were there? Question B: would they kill them off faster if we were not there?

(d) And of course even then when the Sunni and Shia lie together like lambs and the one million or so refugees return, so that the Republicans can declare victory and the Democrats shamed in 2015 or later, they aren't going to be pro-American; just less eager to blow us or each other up. That's about as good as it can get and will likely take a decade at least of our being there. Seems like a pretty low rate of return for our investment.

[nelsonmuntz]Ha Ha![/nelsonmuntz]

Since I have no idea what Mike is saying, I might as well ask him to read this:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWZjMDBlZDg2MDlmMDM4MmE1MGFmNjlkOTE5OWVkOTc=

TnT
So I guess it's better those "youths" get radicalized at a slow and steady rate? Why is good news immediately qualified with what is essentially the desired end result? Why are you attaching a business term to the struggle for freedom? Following your line of thinking makes WWII a horrible investment. We should have spent all our resources developing the A-bomb more quickly and told Hitler and the Emperor to leave us alone and spent the money saving the world on ourselves instead.