A journalist never 'assumes', that's the first of many mistakes.

There has never been absolute proof that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. There is speculation and lack of evidence to prove they were involved directly. There is also plenty of proof that Al Queda is present and active in Iraq. So to say with conviction that they were not at all involved is stretching the evidence to fit your version of the truth.

As for the 'will of God' statement, you are taking that out of context and twisting it's meaning.

She is praying that the US is doing the will of God.
Not that the will of God is what the US is doing.

See the difference?

If you actually read the entire quote, not just the shortened version that Gibson used, you'll see this quite clearly.

I will sumbit to the panel that Al Qaeda planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. True or false?

I will submit to the panel that most of the fighting that is still happening in Iraq involves Al Qaeda in Iraq. True or false?

Where is the "disturbing" belief? Again, if you want to say that AQI is not really Al Qaeda, you could go down that road and probably have a decent conversation. Bringing up the idea that Iraq didn't plan 9/11 is entirely irrelevant though. We're not fighting against a dead dictator and his deposed regime. We're fighting against elements of the extremist movement who killed 3,000 Americans. To quote The One - "There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until we went in there."

So you get to criticize the invasion because it attracted Al Qaeda terrorists to Iraq, then turn around and criticize the Governor for mentioning that our troops are going to be fighting those terrorists? That's beautiful, in a circular and nonsensical sort of way.

And she didn't say that the war was God's will. That one has obviously been debunked, but some people still need to cling to the narrative.

Both Bush and Condi have stated that Iraq was not involved in 9/11.

So you or the administration, whoever, are suggesting they (Iraq) was involved "indirectly." If you use that "indirect" argument, then our good friends the Saudis were then involved far more than Iraq. And the Eygptians also.

So she was praying that although the evidence was false, she was "hoping" or praying that the "will of God" will ultimately justify it at some later date?

There was no Al Queda in Iraq before we occupied the country. And just because they call themselves, al Queda doesn't necessarily mean they all are. Like republicans when Bush was running, (especially here in Texas) all were Republicans, now all of a sudden he is so unpopular they are more difficult to find. Like little league team calling themselves the Yankees.

Now, who are we fighting now? Probably remnants of Al Queda in Iraq, other splinter groups and some radical friends of some cleric and even maybe a few Iraqis that have family members killed by coalition forces at one time or another.
Now, in An Bar province, the former hot bed for al Queda in Iraq, we have successfully became friends with various Sunni tribal leaders, these tribal leaders and their followers, have helped the US with intelligence and in some cases fought with American forces in helping route al Queda in Iraq. Before this "alliance" with the Sunnis, many Sunnis were either members of al Queda in Iraq or sympathizers. Some were former members of Sadaams armed forces. These Sunnis are now "on the payroll" of the US. They have been a big help and have sped up the process. They are possibly the primary reason we are now giving back control of An Bar province to the Iraqis. But... and here might be the problem, the President, al Malicki, is Shiite. And he has now issued arresst warrants for around 450 of the Sunni tribal leaders and their followers. This is not sitting well with the Sunnis, obviously. I doubt if the Iraqi army can control An Bar province, if you look at their dismal performance in Bashra and Sadr City. SO it's either back to square one, where the Sunnis again fight the US and the Shiite lead government, or the US stays indefinately and tries to play intermediary to the 2 tribal factions and try to keep the lid on a civil war, that both tribes seem to want.

gordo I have a question. Is English your second language? Because you seem to have a really hard time undertanding things 'in context'.

What specifically are you referring?

Hers another link: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...2/1327574.aspx
Seems other people are confused also.

video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_123205.html

Could not locate the complete video other than on a admittledly liberal site. 14minutes 26 second video.


Pre Palin: McCain: Mayors and Govenors can't handle national secuirty.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_125944.html