Dr. Guy, I'm going to be bold and say there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the Iraq invasion much like I did with my "talking points", which really is nothing more than an O'Reillyism on your part. Talking points? Come on now, who made you the foremost authority on debating structure? Who said this is a debate anyways? Could be a musing, or a posit. Could be theory, or discussion but that's an overused "conservative pundit" trick to discredit an argument, or should I say assertion. Before we diverge further into semantics let me continue my "talking points". Now for the real reason you commented, as far as Al Qaeda in Iraq, we allowed them to come in by removing the Saddam regime. It was an unfortunate circumstance of the occupation in my and in many others opinions. I'll quote the 2005 CIA intelligence report released by the U.S. Senate following the war.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed
Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests
from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support,"
Here is a link to the report in case you'd like to read the actual intelligence assesment or haven't already.
The false ties to alqaeda in Iraq by this administration where also debunked by the 9/11 commission report with a link here
How can you still say that Al Qaeda might have been in Iraq? I thought this was ancient history. I don't know who it's open to debate for, but no one in office that I know of is willing to open up this can of worms again for fear of looking like a lunatic (I can't name a single one that would still say it beyond this administration), at least no one has been vocal about it since it was universally accepted that Colin Powell's address to the UN was clearly wrong and politically motivated. It's like saying that WMD's being in Iraq is open to debate. It just doesn't make sense. Have you read these reports BTW? Hate to sound so adversarial but many of your arguments are largely based off ancient propagandhist rhetoric from 2004. Also, if you're going to say "there are many more examples" you kind of have to name them. It's like if I were to say I have a hundred witnesses that saw Bin Laden and George W. Bush shake hands prior to 911 and then not offering a single one. BTW a debate can be started in many different ways, I've never been shy to posit facts or support when needed, this initially was an opinion piece, but If you want some more substance thats fine too. Can you cite any credible sources that place the Baathist Iraqi state actively aiding Al Qaeda, or active, successful Al Qaeda recruiting during Saddam's much derided tenure? If you do, make sure you forward it to the U.S. Senate Intelligence committee, seemingly they are as ill informed as I am.
Dynamaso, I concur with uknowimright, liberation in itself is a bit of a subjective reality. For example, some women prefer to wear Burqa's, countering some arguments that it is simply oppressive and against women's rights. How that works I dunno, but it happens.
There's a link, lest Dr. Guy calls this a "talking point". That is an excellent question BTW.
Uknowimright, you are very correct to say that the Dalai Lama is not calling for full independence. I stand corrected. So lets "substitute" Tibet for Taiwan for the sake of political correctness. You could add Zimbabwe now.
Great comments guys.