If we are "fighting them over there" instead of here, where are they?

[Brotherjohn]

Someone posted a link to this article earlier, but I wanted to bring it up again to point out the obvious revelation that it really just proves that we are NOT fighting Al Qaeda "over there".

Commander of American forces Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said:
"At one point, we had up to about 20 suspected al-Qaida members, but as we have continued to refine and interrogate, we have not been able to establish definitively that they were al-Qaida members."

(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=212111)

When quoted on NPR this morning, Sanchez also said we have about 4000 enemy fighters in detention.

So of those 4000 detainees, at one point, we HAD (not have) UP TO 20... who MAY HAVE been Al Qaeda, but
as our interroragtion has continued and been refined, we STILL have not determined that any of them are actually Al Qaeda.

That sounds like he's saying we have nothing... nada... zilch. So far, we've found more Al Qaeda here in America... and that's even AFTER making Iraq a magnet for terrorism.

So when Bush says we're fighting "them" over there so we don't have to fight "them" over here, just who the hell is he talking about?

[kentuck]

1. Good question.

Would we really be fighting them over here if we weren't fighting them over there? Does that mean that Homeland Security is a failure?

[Brotherjohn]

2. Also, another obvious point some columnist pointed out last week...

... just because we're fighting "them" over there (which according to Sanchez, we aren't), doesn't mean "they" can't come over here and fight us.

Bush's reasoning is moronic. But what else is new? I'd love to give him a logic test. You know: "If A is always B, and B is sometimes C, then is A always C?"