Obama on AQ and Iraq

Obama is correct in principle. More playing with words, relying media apathy and public ignorance. I hopes Barak hammers home that Bush's miscalculation, and McCain's support, removed the biggest counter-weight and de facto ally in the middle east and Iran, Saddam Hussein.

Sent by Bob | 11:34 PM | 9-26-2008

When did the Wikipedia become a reliable source for intelligence information?

Sent by Kate | 12:38 AM | 9-27-2008

Ansar Al-Islam was reportedly formed in December 2001 by Kurdish separatists and Islamic fundamentalists (in accordance with , which I'll take as more palatable than a wiki link). Reportedly, the group received training in Afghanistan and was given financial support to stand up by Bin Laden.

Though there may be a tie between a pre-2003 insurgent organization and Al Qaeda, it would be foolish to extend that tie to Saddam Hussein, whose often secular policies (and definitely treatment of the Kurds) would have placed this group in staunch opposition to him.

Speaking from a new (yet trained) military intelligence standpoint, it's dangerous to link every insurgent organization together as though they all mesh. Each group has its own agenda, and too often the average armchair news-surfer misses the nuances of religious affiliation from group to group, or what their individual goals are. Some (like Al Qaeda) seek a "global caliphate," or an entirely Muslim world. Some have more down-to-earth political agendas.

Regardless of origin, Obama's point can be reasonably distilled to the fact that terrorism in Iraq has exponentially exploded since Coalition Forces came onto the scene, including several foreign sources that (Bob has a point) Saddam wouldn't have stood for. This activity was in response to our actions; the groups weren't there en masse plotting against us.

Sent by Anne | 2:02 AM | 9-27-2008

I agree with Kate. I'm in college and every one of my professors has stated that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable, scholarly source. Sure, it's good for quick, mostly well-known facts, like "the United States Flag has 50 stars on it". Don't get me wrong, I like Wikipedia. But with so many people contributing to and editing material, it can hardly be considered a refereed, peer-reviewed, airtight source of information.
Kat

Sent by kat | 3:17 AM | 9-27-2008

I am a teacher and if you used Wikipedia as a resource for one of my assignments you would fail. I quote Homer Simpson, "Wikipedia!, I'll fix that when I get home!" In fact I might just go and do it when I am finished with this comment.

Sent by Adam Gunst | 12:12 PM | 9-27-2008

Wikipedia?! Is this a middle-schoool research paper or a serious look at our foreign relations? This is FOX News researching ) :

Sent by Aimee | 8:30 PM | 9-27-2008