Spanish bombing proves Iraqi/AQ link.

[Timefortruth]

That is the new talking point, and I think it may stick. People don't realize that the bombings in Spain and the invasion are separated by a year. They don't realize that the invasion simply created more angry young Arab men, ripe for AQ recruitment. They will think that this is some sort proof that the two were connected all along.

How can one explain something so complicated in one sentence?

[AngryYoungMan]

1. Say, "Clearly the 'mission' isn't 'accomplished' at all."

Just a start.

[northzax]

2. I agree. let's run with it

AQ is based in Iraq. Of course, since we, theoretically, rule Iraq, it's all our fault, isn't it?

[AngryYoungMan]

3. Or, conversely, "'Taking out' Hussein wasn't very effective, was it?"

"I guess we should have focused on bin Laden instead."

[ComerPerro]

12. Hmm, so I guess Bush was wrong

When he said that he didn't know and didn't care where bin Laden was, because he wasn't our priority.

[a_random_joel]

4. I hope that IS the new talking point!

Easily defused...

There were no AQ in Iraq before the war. There are now. Told ya so.

Next talking point.

[9215]

5. hmmmm.....let me see

Now who would want to link the attacks in Spain to Al Qaeda to promote the idea that Al Qaeda was reacting to Spain's involvement in Iraq?

As the Roman playwright Seneca warns us, "Cui prodest scelus, is fecit"-- the one who derives advantage from the crime is the one most likely to have committed it.


Now, when we learn that Al Qaeda has worked, or is working, with the CIA as in the Balkans (Google: Chossudovsky+"trans-balkan pipeline") we must ask a deeper question: who controls Al Qaeda?

[mobuto]

6. If that were the case

then when Al Qaeda was attacking us because they wanted us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia (which we did, btw), does that indicate an Al Qaeda-Saudi Government connection?

Of course not. The argument is just as fallacious anyway you spin it.

[AngryYoungMan]

8. Right, but the point here is combating a talking point, not explaining it.

It's not the same thing. Republicans understand the distinction. So many of their utterances are just "sand in the eyes" while they wind up for the takedown punch. This thread is about doing the same thing to them.

[Canuckistanian]

7. Forget about subtlety....

If you can't explain something to a typical RWer in a short, less-than-8-word sentence, you'll never make them understand. Also, if it isn't black-and-white, them-vs-us or too "in-tell-ek-chooal", there's no use trying to make a point or explain what's really happening.
:argh:

[Ksec]

9. What happened to the lower oil prices

that were supposed to happen post saddam?

[gasperc]

10. proves how bad our security really is, were not safer after Iraq

If capturing Iraq was supposed to make us safer, then how do we explain the subway bombings? They didn't use WMD, which they may or may not have, they killed hundreds of people, crippled the subway system in that area, and terrified millions.

How are we safer? Billions have been spent on Iraq. Billions that could have been spent on better non-invasive bomb detection methods, better tracking and identifying of citizens with criminal intent.

How are we safer?

[Homer12]

11. That is the crappiest logic I've heard.

[Jacobin]

13. insHannity started that one, or at least is repeating it

Where do you start with people like this? :shrug:

[Zero Gravitas]

14. Bring It On

If these idiots are going to try and use these bombings to somehow imply that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda then they're even stupider than we thought. Do they really think that people will believe that AQ bombed those trains because Osama's buddy was kicked out of power? Puh-lease!

These bombings happened because of Bush's invasion of Iraq. The religious psychos were not in any way harmed or deterred by Bush's war, they were only further enraged by it. Al Qaeda was not damaged in any way by what happened in Iraq, but they do have a bigger pool of potential recruits now.