Handing Iraq back to Al Qaeda: How do our Iraq War vets feel about it?

[RandallFlagg]

Yea bush did a great job and McCain and the GOP want to go to war with Iran next. Now that's setting the world on fire, you dumb ****.

Uh-huh...there was a plan in place to leave residual troops in place. Obama changed it. WE see the result. (alQuieda on the run...or Obama told us back in 2012...and YOU fell for it)...

As to McCain? He's correct...one of FEW times...but then he was in the Military...Obama? He was too busy partying with the "Choom Gang" to be bothered.

IDIOT

John McCain being a soldier doesn't trump his love for defense contractors. He doesn't give a shit about soldiers or vets. They want war, that's it. Notice things are just fine and we haven't invaded Iran. THey want a nuke? Go for it.

And we can't stop Iraq, Afgan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and all the other arab countries if they want to go with Al Queda and be muslim nations we should stay out of it. We don't even need their fucking oil anymore. Lets get out and just the next time we have a Republican president and the FBI warns you that terrorists are going to use airplanes as weapons, give the fucking airlines a heads up. NOT what Bush did. He went back to painting at his Crawford ranch. Fucking retard.

Umm...no. McCain was a Sailor and a pilot.

 

[asterism]

Why bother they are all corrupt and cowards. That's why we should have left Saddam in power. Only a ruthless dictator can govern those people.

Sorry troops Bush put you in a no win situation. We call them quagmires.

bullshit
you say that to one of the military men and women's face who was over there , better yet tell that to their families face
you should say sorry to our troops for Obama allowing their sacrifices all go to shit because he a damn coward and listens to people like you.... and I think he wants to see it fall into hands of terrorist

ogibillm said it for me Stephanie. Go fuck yourself.

Fake ass patriot. Bush really pulled one over on you. After all these years you probably still believe he had WMD's. Dumb ****.

Actually, Saddam did. Now you can argue that it wasn't "stockpiles" and then blabber on about "mushroom cloud" and all that.

But, Saddam did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Specifically, munitions armed with binary agent Sarin.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq ? With Surprising Results | Danger Room | WIRED

So here's how this goes. The meat of the cease-fire is that:

1. It's a cease-fire. Anytime one party fires on the other, rationale to resume the previous war is automatic. After all, if we don't enforce cease-fires, what's the point? The alternative is to pull a Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cause an unconditional surrender. Cease-fire is a better option, but it has to mean something.

2. The UN was a conduit to the negotiation, not the authority. So while the process was certainly used, Saddam claimed that all of his WMDs were destroyed (while at the same time bribing UN Security Council members to veto any attack) when in fact they were not. Make no mistake, Sarin artillery shells are far from benign even if they are old. In fact, they are just as capable if they are binary agents.

3. Saddam supported, harbored, ignored, and generally aligned himself with any and every terrorist organization he thought he could use. He was not the a pious Muslim Cleric, he was largely secular - and Sunni. But he was never opposed to playing chess with the people of the world, and he was absolutely ruthless. Heck, he invaded Kuwait because he thought he could get away with it. Someone with that level of depravity, coupled with strong French, Russian, and German UN allies is truly dangerous. He didn't want the US to just leave him alone, he wanted to lull us into a false sense of security.

4. He couldn't control Kurdistan, how could he control Basra? After Afghanistan, Bin Laden's next best choice was Iraq. It doesn't matter if Saddam would harbor Bin Laden or if Bin Laden would take over Iraq for himself, a fully integrated Iraq with either one in charge was an actual direct threat to the USA. Put it this way, there's a reason we didn't attack Japan right after Pearl Harbor, we went after Hitler. While it's not a direct comparison, it's similar. We first needed to neutralize Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and then knowing that they were headed straight for Iraq, go there too.

The sectarian violence, war, tragedy, and absolute horror the Iraqi people are experiencing now is terrible. Rather than send in troops, I hope our President is mobilizing a MASSIVE humanitarian campaign to help the survivors. But in the end, this was going to happen with or without a US invasion in 2003. This is a false nation, a country that was cobbled together before anyone knew there was oil under that ground. Blame England, or blame the Ottoman Empire.

Biden was wrong on the time, but he was correct on the dynamic. Splitting up Iraq now is the best option.

 

[rdean]

Oh, that's right.

Those were Boy Scouts that Saddam was training in those camps.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Do you leftist fanatics EVER pause for breath between lies?

What does "little Acorn" stand for. Is that they size of your pointed and brain damaged little head. From your own link:

Could there have been an al-Qaida connection?

Did Iraq need Usama and al-Qaida? Saddam sought to destroy any international groups-be they religious or ethnic based-that he perceived would attack him because of their linkages to domestic Iraqi factions. Iraq ruthlessly suppressed elements of its Shia community, nearly 60 percent of the population, who were known or suspected of belonging to, harboring members, or merely sympathetic with the aims groups such as the Iraqi Islamic Amal, the Islamic Dawa Party, and the Iranian-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Republic in Iraq (SCIRI). As noted above, Saddam was willing to aid the Syrian-based Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood organization as a tool to attack Hafiz al-Asad, but he would not permit an Iraqi chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood to thrive. Saddam may have posed as a devout Muslim to win the support of Iraq's Shia but he was at heart a secular Arab nationalist whose only loyalty was to himself and the state.

In my judgment, Saddam assessed Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Ladin wanted to attack Iraq after it occupied Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces. Several captured al-Qaida operatives have said Usama refused to consider working for or with Saddam, according to press accounts. Saddam would have understood that after Usama had realized his ambition to remove U.S. forces from Arabia and eliminate the Al Sa`ud and other ruling families in the Gulf, that he would have been the next target. The threat would have appeared particularly risky to Saddam, given the modest indicators of a revival in personal piety and Islamist dress among Iraqi Sunnis in the last decade. He certainly suspected Saudi Arabia of encouraging Wahhabi pietism and practices among Iraq's Sunni Arabs and Bin Ladin's loyalists would have been suspect of similar anti-regime activities.

-----------------------------------------

And this people is a terrific example of why Republicans failed in Iraq. They believe what they want to. Whatever they read, if the read, they imagine is says something other than what it says.

I think you missed this part, where it has been documented that the dynamic changed.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I didn't miss jack shit.

Open the PDF.

Hit control F and type in Saddam. You get 21 places in the document where Saddam is mentioned. Except for the ones that were cherry picked, they are like this:

74. Intelligent report: unsuccessful Bin Laden probes for contact with Iraq

Bin Laden didn't like the secular government of Iraq. Bin Laden was a charismatic figure in Iraq, therefore a threat to Saddam, therefore barred from Iraq. Once you understand the dynamics between those two assholes, it's clear why they would never become friends.

But these ignorant right wingers want their conspiracies to be true so bad, they are willing to believe the impossible. They took a bad situation that had been bad for over a thousand years and stirred it up. Remember how proud they were? "Mission accomplished"? Just like with the way the ruined the economy, really big GOP fiascoes and disasters need a few years to really mature. The damage doesn't necessarily show up overnight. Iraq and the economy are prime examples.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stephanie is a jingoist and is willing to have our troops killed and hurt for nothing.

Shut up Starkey.

Truth, son.

Do you know our incompetent president is three times more popular than the far right. Amazing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stephanie is a jingoist and is willing to have our troops killed and hurt for nothing.

Shut up Starkey.

Truth, son.

Do you know our incompetent president is three times more popular than the far right. Amazing.

Yeah Jake, we'll see how you guys do in November. I suspect you're in for Shellacking, Part II

 

[Camp]

There will be tragic consequences if we continue to allow the right wing to declare all jihadist groups in the world to be "al Qaeda" for short term political rhetoric. ISIL is not al Qaeda but are being used to reference and promote a re-involvement of US military action in Iraq. There are literally hundreds of Jihadist groups in the world. ISIL is a significant one, but they are not al Qaeda and should not be part of our war on terrorism unless we want to take sides on the SUNNI - SHIITE WAR.

 

[asterism]

What does "little Acorn" stand for. Is that they size of your pointed and brain damaged little head. From your own link:

Could there have been an al-Qaida connection?

Did Iraq need Usama and al-Qaida? Saddam sought to destroy any international groups-be they religious or ethnic based-that he perceived would attack him because of their linkages to domestic Iraqi factions. Iraq ruthlessly suppressed elements of its Shia community, nearly 60 percent of the population, who were known or suspected of belonging to, harboring members, or merely sympathetic with the aims groups such as the Iraqi Islamic Amal, the Islamic Dawa Party, and the Iranian-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Republic in Iraq (SCIRI). As noted above, Saddam was willing to aid the Syrian-based Sunni Islamic Muslim Brotherhood organization as a tool to attack Hafiz al-Asad, but he would not permit an Iraqi chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood to thrive. Saddam may have posed as a devout Muslim to win the support of Iraq's Shia but he was at heart a secular Arab nationalist whose only loyalty was to himself and the state.

In my judgment, Saddam assessed Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Ladin wanted to attack Iraq after it occupied Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces. Several captured al-Qaida operatives have said Usama refused to consider working for or with Saddam, according to press accounts. Saddam would have understood that after Usama had realized his ambition to remove U.S. forces from Arabia and eliminate the Al Sa`ud and other ruling families in the Gulf, that he would have been the next target. The threat would have appeared particularly risky to Saddam, given the modest indicators of a revival in personal piety and Islamist dress among Iraqi Sunnis in the last decade. He certainly suspected Saudi Arabia of encouraging Wahhabi pietism and practices among Iraq's Sunni Arabs and Bin Ladin's loyalists would have been suspect of similar anti-regime activities.

-----------------------------------------

And this people is a terrific example of why Republicans failed in Iraq. They believe what they want to. Whatever they read, if the read, they imagine is says something other than what it says.

I think you missed this part, where it has been documented that the dynamic changed.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I didn't miss jack shit.

Open the PDF.

Hit control F and type in Saddam. You get 21 places in the document where Saddam is mentioned. Except for the ones that were cherry picked, they are like this:

74. Intelligent report: unsuccessful Bin Laden probes for contact with Iraq

Bin Laden didn't like the secular government of Iraq. Bin Laden was a charismatic figure in Iraq, therefore a threat to Saddam, therefore barred from Iraq. Once you understand the dynamics between those two assholes, it's clear why they would never become friends.

But these ignorant right wingers want their conspiracies to be true so bad, they are willing to believe the impossible. They took a bad situation that had been bad for over a thousand years and stirred it up. Remember how proud they were? "Mission accomplished"? Just like with the way the ruined the economy, really big GOP fiascoes and disasters need a few years to really mature. The damage doesn't necessarily show up overnight. Iraq and the economy are prime examples.

"Ignorant" is a funny word for you to use. We can disagree on our conclusions, but when you have to attack the credibility of someone to prove your point, that's when you've lost.

I'm not sure how much time you actually spent in Iraq to understand the dynamic, and I really don't know if you ever knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11 or even the USS Cole bombing. I was part of a team that coined the phrase "Somalia strategy" long before anyone would even acknowledge that our blood and brothers we left in Mogadishu were a result of this megalomaniac billionaire.

I'm far from ignorant.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How do our Iraq War veterans, who fought and bled to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his terrorist training camps, feel about Obama pulling our troops out and handing the country back to the terrorists?

According to antiwar.com, 4,489 of them are "not available for comment", having given their lives to free the country in the first place.

Recent headlines:

BAGHDAD FALLING: Iraq crisis: Baghdad prepares for the worst as Islamist militants vow to capture the capital - Middle East - World - The Independent
MOSUL OVERRUN BY AL QAEDA: Mosul is burning, and Iraq could still get worse. Here are 5 reasons why - The Washington Post
AL QAEDA ALLIES SIEZE TIKRIT: TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews
TERRORISTS "FULL-BLOWN ARMY": Iraq?s Terrorists Are Becoming a Full-Blown Army - The Daily Beast

Election have consequences. Especially when you elect liberal fanatics to be the Commander in Chief, and give them majorities in Congress... as we did after defeating most terrorists in Iraq.

--------------------------------------

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost - NationalJournal.com

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost

By Clara Ritger
June 11, 2014

Americans are tired of war. For the 17 members of Congress who served in Iraq, that means watching helplessly as the cities they fought for fall once more to extremists.

Three Republican congressmen who served in Iraq—Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio—said it feels like the progress they made has been thrown away.

"Going out across the desert I remember the feelings that you have, wondering if you're going to make it out alive," Perry said. "Right now I wonder what that was all about. What was the point of all of that?"

"We have an enemy today that senses weakness, knows how to find it, and then goes after it," Wenstrup said. "I came home from Iraq feeling that we liberated 25 million people."

"I think at this point the administration made a choice to cut and run," Collins said. "When Fallujah fell again, we knew this foreign policy had consequences."

 

[ogibillm]

How do our Iraq War veterans, who fought and bled to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his terrorist training camps, feel about Obama pulling our troops out and handing the country back to the terrorists?

According to antiwar.com, 4,489 of them are "not available for comment", having given their lives to free the country in the first place.

Recent headlines:

BAGHDAD FALLING: Iraq crisis: Baghdad prepares for the worst as Islamist militants vow to capture the capital - Middle East - World - The Independent
MOSUL OVERRUN BY AL QAEDA: Mosul is burning, and Iraq could still get worse. Here are 5 reasons why - The Washington Post
AL QAEDA ALLIES SIEZE TIKRIT: TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews
TERRORISTS "FULL-BLOWN ARMY": Iraq?s Terrorists Are Becoming a Full-Blown Army - The Daily Beast

Election have consequences. Especially when you elect liberal fanatics to be the Commander in Chief, and give them majorities in Congress... as we did after defeating most terrorists in Iraq.

--------------------------------------

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost - NationalJournal.com

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost

By Clara Ritger
June 11, 2014

Americans are tired of war. For the 17 members of Congress who served in Iraq, that means watching helplessly as the cities they fought for fall once more to extremists.

Three Republican congressmen who served in Iraq—Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio—said it feels like the progress they made has been thrown away.

"Going out across the desert I remember the feelings that you have, wondering if you're going to make it out alive," Perry said. "Right now I wonder what that was all about. What was the point of all of that?"

"We have an enemy today that senses weakness, knows how to find it, and then goes after it," Wenstrup said. "I came home from Iraq feeling that we liberated 25 million people."

"I think at this point the administration made a choice to cut and run," Collins said. "When Fallujah fell again, we knew this foreign policy had consequences."

you've neglected to tell us what you would have done differently that would have prevented the uprising.

 

[Peach]

False premise from the start.

 

[rdean]

I think you missed this part, where it has been documented that the dynamic changed.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

I didn't miss jack shit.

Open the PDF.

Hit control F and type in Saddam. You get 21 places in the document where Saddam is mentioned. Except for the ones that were cherry picked, they are like this:

74. Intelligent report: unsuccessful Bin Laden probes for contact with Iraq

Bin Laden didn't like the secular government of Iraq. Bin Laden was a charismatic figure in Iraq, therefore a threat to Saddam, therefore barred from Iraq. Once you understand the dynamics between those two assholes, it's clear why they would never become friends.

But these ignorant right wingers want their conspiracies to be true so bad, they are willing to believe the impossible. They took a bad situation that had been bad for over a thousand years and stirred it up. Remember how proud they were? "Mission accomplished"? Just like with the way the ruined the economy, really big GOP fiascoes and disasters need a few years to really mature. The damage doesn't necessarily show up overnight. Iraq and the economy are prime examples.

"Ignorant" is a funny word for you to use. We can disagree on our conclusions, but when you have to attack the credibility of someone to prove your point, that's when you've lost.

I'm not sure how much time you actually spent in Iraq to understand the dynamic, and I really don't know if you ever knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11 or even the USS Cole bombing. I was part of a team that coined the phrase "Somalia strategy" long before anyone would even acknowledge that our blood and brothers we left in Mogadishu were a result of this megalomaniac billionaire.

I'm far from ignorant.

When someone links to a PDF and then cherry pics one phrase from over 20 references, the terms I could use are way beyond "ignorant". I was being polite.

 

[rdean]

How do our Iraq War veterans, who fought and bled to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein and his terrorist training camps, feel about Obama pulling our troops out and handing the country back to the terrorists?

According to antiwar.com, 4,489 of them are "not available for comment", having given their lives to free the country in the first place.

Recent headlines:

BAGHDAD FALLING: Iraq crisis: Baghdad prepares for the worst as Islamist militants vow to capture the capital - Middle East - World - The Independent
MOSUL OVERRUN BY AL QAEDA: Mosul is burning, and Iraq could still get worse. Here are 5 reasons why - The Washington Post
AL QAEDA ALLIES SIEZE TIKRIT: TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews
TERRORISTS "FULL-BLOWN ARMY": Iraq?s Terrorists Are Becoming a Full-Blown Army - The Daily Beast

Election have consequences. Especially when you elect liberal fanatics to be the Commander in Chief, and give them majorities in Congress... as we did after defeating most terrorists in Iraq.

--------------------------------------

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost - NationalJournal.com

Congress's Iraq Vets Helplessly Watch Their Gains Lost

By Clara Ritger
June 11, 2014

Americans are tired of war. For the 17 members of Congress who served in Iraq, that means watching helplessly as the cities they fought for fall once more to extremists.

Three Republican congressmen who served in Iraq—Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Doug Collins of Georgia, and Brad Wenstrup of Ohio—said it feels like the progress they made has been thrown away.

"Going out across the desert I remember the feelings that you have, wondering if you're going to make it out alive," Perry said. "Right now I wonder what that was all about. What was the point of all of that?"

"We have an enemy today that senses weakness, knows how to find it, and then goes after it," Wenstrup said. "I came home from Iraq feeling that we liberated 25 million people."

"I think at this point the administration made a choice to cut and run," Collins said. "When Fallujah fell again, we knew this foreign policy had consequences."

you've neglected to tell us what you would have done differently that would have prevented the uprising.

Never invaded Iraq. Gone after Bin Laden. Kill him and then leave as a warning to others would attack the US. Yes Virginia, it really is that simple.

 

[rdean]

Handing Iraq back to Al Qaeda

Funny someone should write "handing Iraq back to al Qaeda" when al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until the Republicans opened the door and let them in.

 

[Mac1958]

.

We could have stayed in Iraq for 500 years.

On the day we left, the bad guys take it over.

We should not have invaded in the first place.

The lives, limbs and minds that we lost were a tragedy that should not have happened.

.

 

[The T]

.

We could have stayed in Iraq for 500 years.

On the day we left, the bad guys take it over.

We should not have invaded in the first place.

The lives, limbs and minds that we lost were a tragedy that should not have happened.

.

Like it or not? There was a plan in place to keep the peace. Obama torpedoed it for the sake of getting re-elected..."..."I stopped the WAR in Iraq, Killed bin-Laden, and al-Quaeda is now on the run..."

Obama frames everything on politics, his popularity, and his legacy. He is a narcissit that is only worried of himself...he is the worst kind that never thinks of the consequences...who he hurts in the process. His 'legacy' will be the WORST of any US President in history.

 

[bodecea]

.

We could have stayed in Iraq for 500 years.

On the day we left, the bad guys take it over.

We should not have invaded in the first place.

The lives, limbs and minds that we lost were a tragedy that should not have happened.

.

Like it or not? There was a plan in place to keep the peace. Obama torpedoed it for the sake of getting re-elected..."..."I stopped the WAR in Iraq, Killed bin-Laden, and al-Quaeda is now on the run..."

Obama frames everything on politics, his popularity, and his legacy. He is a narcissit that is only worried of himself...he is the worst kind that never thinks of the consequences...who he hurts in the process. His 'legacy' will be the WORST of any US President in history.

No there wasn't. Not any more than "they will welcome us as liberators". It was a mistake to go in the first place. A BIG mistake. People like you would like to sit on your safe couch and send our troops to be killed in even larger numbers....and the results would still be the same, except more Americans dead. Is that a goal of yours?

 

[ogibillm]

.

We could have stayed in Iraq for 500 years.

On the day we left, the bad guys take it over.

We should not have invaded in the first place.

The lives, limbs and minds that we lost were a tragedy that should not have happened.

.

Like it or not? There was a plan in place to keep the peace. Obama torpedoed it for the sake of getting re-elected..."..."I stopped the WAR in Iraq, Killed bin-Laden, and al-Quaeda is now on the run..."

Obama frames everything on politics, his popularity, and his legacy. He is a narcissit that is only worried of himself...he is the worst kind that never thinks of the consequences...who he hurts in the process. His 'legacy' will be the WORST of any US President in history.

what do you think that plan was, and when do you think it was changed?

 

[BlackSand]

Do it now ... Or do it later.

It is always better when a party gets to pick the battlefield and the pool of possible casualties.
But I understand ... People here believe that the rest of the world works like the United States.
Here's a clue ... It Doesn't ... But I am not against the suffering of fools.

We are going to fight the enemy one place or another ... And if you want to do it here ... Well so be it.
Arrogance and a false sense of security fly out the window when the terror comes home.
People bitch about how long we stayed or might have needed to stay in Iraq ... But as a vet I was stationed in Germany, Korea and Japan (among other places) at times during my service ... Go figure!


There are some shitty places in this world ... And then there are some truly shitty places in this world.

.

 

[asterism]

I didn't miss jack shit.

Open the PDF.

Hit control F and type in Saddam. You get 21 places in the document where Saddam is mentioned. Except for the ones that were cherry picked, they are like this:

74. Intelligent report: unsuccessful Bin Laden probes for contact with Iraq

Bin Laden didn't like the secular government of Iraq. Bin Laden was a charismatic figure in Iraq, therefore a threat to Saddam, therefore barred from Iraq. Once you understand the dynamics between those two assholes, it's clear why they would never become friends.

But these ignorant right wingers want their conspiracies to be true so bad, they are willing to believe the impossible. They took a bad situation that had been bad for over a thousand years and stirred it up. Remember how proud they were? "Mission accomplished"? Just like with the way the ruined the economy, really big GOP fiascoes and disasters need a few years to really mature. The damage doesn't necessarily show up overnight. Iraq and the economy are prime examples.

"Ignorant" is a funny word for you to use. We can disagree on our conclusions, but when you have to attack the credibility of someone to prove your point, that's when you've lost.

I'm not sure how much time you actually spent in Iraq to understand the dynamic, and I really don't know if you ever knew who Bin Laden was before 9/11 or even the USS Cole bombing. I was part of a team that coined the phrase "Somalia strategy" long before anyone would even acknowledge that our blood and brothers we left in Mogadishu were a result of this megalomaniac billionaire.

I'm far from ignorant.

When someone links to a PDF and then cherry pics one phrase from over 20 references, the terms I could use are way beyond "ignorant". I was being polite.

So linking to the actual 911 Commission Report is not appropriate?

I didn't cherry pick one phrase. I linked to the relevant section that describes how the antagonistic relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam had changed.

 

[asterism]

Handing Iraq back to Al Qaeda

Funny someone should write "handing Iraq back to al Qaeda" when al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until the Republicans opened the door and let them in.

Bullshit.

New Frontier After the fall of the Taliban, al-Zarqawi slips out through Iran to northern Iraq, linking up with local terrorism groups. He achieves global notoriety when Colin Powell names him in his February 2003 U.N. speech laying out the U.S.'s case for invading Iraq.

TIMELINE: Zarqawi's road to perdition. - TIME