Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
Now Al Qaeda is in power in Iraq, along with numerous other far more hostile factions. Since the outcome of removing Saddam was this inhereant fact, I guess its safe to assume that you got what you wished for as well?

These guys running around controlling Iraq now are far more hostile than Saddam....who if you remember was our "buddy" at one time. But short term memory loss about such things seems commonplace among some people.
That's one of the DU talking points that never gets old. It also never gets relevant.

Rumsfeld met with Saddam as Reagan's special envoy, in 1983, in order to provide Iraq with covert aid against Iran in the Iran/Iraq War. At the same time, we were also covertly providing arms to Iran. Saddam wasn't our "buddy," he was one of two enemies of the US who were engaged in a mutually destructive war, and we gave both sides the means to prolong it so as to exhaust both combatants. One might call that a "realist" approach to global politics.

Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
AQ have been running around that place since the summer of 2004. It was a recruiting free for all once it went all Anarchy. This isn't simply an O' problem, it was a crappy FP problem that he's indeed not helping, but goes back long before him.
AQ had been in Iraq prior to 9/11, although not in great numbers, because Saddam had been a Soviet client and al Qaeda was anti-Soviet, having cut its teeth in Afghanistan. However, after 9/11, Saddam embraced al Qaeda and provided them with safe havens within Iraq after we drove them out of Afghanistan.