NBC, LA Times quoted Bush claiming Al Qaeda is our "major enemy in Iraq," ignored experts' rebuttal
On the July 5 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell said that President Bush's response to calls for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is "Remember Al Qaeda," and then showed a video clip of Bush's statement during a July 4 speech that "a major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States" on September 11, 2001. O'Donnell did not report that, according to a June 28 McClatchy Newspapers article, "U.S. military and intelligence officials" dispute Bush's repeated assertion that Al Qaeda is the source of much of the violence perpetrated in Iraq. McClatchy reported that these officials' "say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops," and that "[t]he group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides."
A July 5 Los Angeles Times article also uncritically reported part of Bush's quote:
President Bush equated the war in Iraq on Wednesday with the U.S. war for independence. Like those revolutionaries who "dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty," Bush said, American soldiers were also fighting "a new and unprecedented war" to protect U.S. freedom.
In a reprise of speeches he delivered throughout the 2006 congressional campaign, the president said the threat that emerged on Sept. 11, 2001, remained today and "a major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States on that fateful day."
The president was adamant in his Fourth of July message that he would stand up to calls to end the war before he believes it has been won. When Congress returns next week, Democrats plan to renew their push to bring home the troops.
By contrast, the June 28 McClatchy article noted that Bush's description of Al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq was "rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts":
Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.
The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.
Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.
[...]
U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.
McClatchy has also highlighted Bush's conflation of Al Qaeda and the group Al Qaeda in Iraq and suggested that the rhetorical shift does not accurately reflect the nature of the insurgency. From a June 24 McClatchy article:
The Bush administration's recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq "al Qaida" rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq.
The uncritical reporting of Bush's July 4 statement also reflects a pattern noted by Salon.com blogger Glenn Greenwald. In a June 23 post, Greenwald noted numerous media reports in which the "enemy" in Iraq "is referred to, almost exclusively now, as 'Al Qaeda.' "
From the July 5 edition of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: A presidency defined and deflated by the war in Iraq. Even breakaway Republicans like Senator Richard Lugar [IN] have begun to call for fewer troops and a changed strategy. The president counters: "Remember Al Qaeda."
BUSH [video clip]: The very same folks that attacked us on September the 11th, a major enemy in Iraq is the same enemy that dared attack the United States on that fateful day.
JOHN HARWOOD (CNBC chief White House correspondent ) [video clip]: Al Qaeda becomes a justification for keeping U.S. troops there, even though many people think that sectarian violence is a big part of the problem.
O'DONNELL: Beyond the war, the president's dress-down attempt to warm up U.S.-Russia relations in Kennebunkport this week.
George keeps trying to strum that last string on his banjo. His problem is that the audience can plainly see the fret board is broken and the strings are missing.
And the right-wing media is just one great big lousy karaoke singer.
Our good buddy NL just repeated this lie on another thread. He and President Numbnuts seem to be operating off the same outdated set of talking points. It must be painful to be wrong so often...if you even care.
I see you post your ignorant opinons without any supporting references.
General Petraeus says this: "Iraq is the "central front in al-Qaida's global campaign," Petraeus said today in a press conference on the heels of yesterday's briefings for the House and Senate. But despite the rise in "sensational attacks" carried out by al-Qaida fighters, he noted that there has been a decrease in the number of sectarian murders in Baghdad since the beginning of the year"
Who is the more credible source: The General in command of the Iraq theater who is actually on the ground in Iraq, or anonymous sources described as "U.S. military and intelligence officials" "quoted" in the decidedly second rate McClatchy press?
It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is, doesn't it, Nerzog?
Patreus' comments would carry more weight if the military hadn't already been caught exaggerating the formidability of Al-Qaeda in Iraq especially with regards to Zarqawi.
On any given day you can read any number of military people pushing the meme that a bunch of the insurgency is foreign. What is often missing is evidence to back it up.
"Both Iraqis and coalition people often exaggerate the role of foreign infiltrators and downplay the role of Iraqi resentment in the insurgency," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a former Pentagon official now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who is writing a book about the Iraqi insurgency.
A former Pentagon official sums it up nicely in the Washington Post:
It makes the government's counterinsurgency efforts seem more legitimate, and it links what's going on in Iraq to the war on terrorism," he continued. "When people go out into battle, they often characterize enemies in the most negative way possible. Obviously there are all kinds of interacting political prejudices they can bring out by blaming outsiders."
The only way Bush can equate this illegal war in Iraq with the American Revolution is by proving to the People of the United States that a foreign country decided we should be free from England and that said foreign country came here kicked England out and put up 14 permanent bases and puppet government and robbed America of it's resources.
"Al Qaeda becomes a justification for keeping U.S. troops there, even though many people think that sectarian violence is a big part of the problem."
Christ, thats like saying in August 2005 "Bush declared that winds continue to be very heavy in New Orleans, but many people think that flooding is a big part of the problem."
Al Qaeda becomes a justification? Since when has Bush ever attempted to JUSTIFY keeping US troops there? Hasn't "if we dont fight them there, we'll have to fight them here," ?"there's no substitute for victory," "when they stand up, we'll stand down" always been enough for this guy ?
They gonna party like its 2004. Would anyboby reading it later be able to guess what year it was done in?
Wait!?
I thought liberals were constantly complaining that we should have gone after the people who attacked us.
al Qaida attacked us, so they are our enemy.
Yes, Bin Laden. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist pre-invasion (or did you read the article??). They exist now because we invaded Iraq.
Where is Bin Laden again? You know, the guy who planned the attack on 11-Sep-01? Last I knew, he wasn't in Gitmo, he's running around probably hanging out in Pakistan living in luxury.
Please go back to your blog and write some more nonsense.
Why wait 18 months?
Was there an Al Qaeda affiliate group, complete with terrorist training camp in Iraq?
Yes, in the area outside the control of Saddam in the north of the country, controlled by Saddam opponents. This camp was know to the Bush administration which choose not to bomb it after 9/11 but rather wait 18 months - Richard A Clarke
You get more clueless with every post. Please read the article before posting. Bush is LYING when he says that al Qaeda fighters are the primary targets and he's LYING when he says that this is the same al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.
Go on over to Salon.com and read Glenn Greenwald's articles on this subject. He's documented many instances where Bush, military leaders and the subsequent news reports trumpeted the defeat of "al Qaeda fighters" who turned out to have absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda. Some of these dead "al Qaeda fighters" were even women, children and elderly citizens that we're supposed to be protecting.
But after his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged that "Al Qaeda" was the smallest component of the "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq:
A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .
COPIOUSNONSENSE, what percentage of people we've killed in Iraq are really Al Qaeda, and how many are just Iraqis who are pissed off at us or at each other? If it's more than 10% Al Qaeda, I'd be very surprised. There must be a more efficient way to fight the "War on Turr".
What percentage of those killed were actively hiding, aiding or abetting those who had taken up arms? By definition, those are ALL enemies, Al Qaeda, Sunni, Shia, or Martians.
Your speculation is without basis. You have no clue how many of those killed were sympathizers, co-conspirators, guerilla fighters hiding behind civilians or actual non-combatants. Even the soldiers actually doing the fighting don't really know this.
Seems like you felt compelled to argue against baseless speculation with some of your own.
So, then, our main opponents are the Sunnis?
'Cuz Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization.
Good to see we've taken sides in the civil war.
I Saw This Coming
For the last two months, Bush and his Generals have been making every bombing, firefight and crime in Iraq connected to Al Qaeda. I have noticed it from the very beginning and wrote many comments and posted it on my blog as far back as March of this year.
What Bush and the Generals are doing amounts to lying, not semantics, to the American people for the purpose of explaining away loss of life in huge numbers. a modern day killing field. The Sunnis are Bush's lamps to be slaughtered, for they are called Sunni Al Qaeda.
Our lying president is trying to "kill two birds with one stone." He will also used this new association to claim Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda all the time. Yes, he as not stopped trying to make the case Al Qaeda and Saddam are, and always have been, allies. I used to say Bush thinks Americans are stupid. I have since changed my claim to Bush thinks his supporters are stupid, and if you believe this assertion Al Qaeda is bigger then 2% of the total opposition in Iraq, you are just that: stupid.
Check this out: Bush's claims were made possible via Fox news, MSNBC and CNN. They have taken full liberty to deliver Bush's assertion every chance they get. Actually, I was watching CSPAN's Washington Journal during a segment in which they had a General explaining the resent offensive in Diyala province. When one caller asked the General what percentage of Al Qaeda was fighting in Diyala province. The General went on a patriotic tangent and never answered the question, and the host did not follow up to make him. The Republicans get too much help from the media.
In short, there is no Al Qaeda in Iraq to speak of. It is a made up farce to keep the killing going in Iraq.
Joseph
I clicked this item just for the purpose of posting my thought about it... and then was happy to see that nearly all the comments already indicated what nearly everybody already knows to be the truth:
That this lie that George W. Bush and his administration originally told the American People and their Congress, in order to compel a hundreds of billions of dollars invasion of Iraq, namely that:
[H.J.Res.114]
"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq..."
WHICH WAS A LIE
"...Resolved, the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
WHICH WAS (AND STLL IS!) ANOTHER LIE
...and now these liars incessantly characterize any and all violence in Iraq, as being the result of "al qaida in Iraq", as a way of not only trying to cover-up the original lie told, but trying incredibly to make that lie retroactively true...
...by continuosly invoking this vague and unformed thing they call 'al qaida'...
...for the purpose of keeping the $8 billion dollars per month flowing (which was the reason for all these lies, and now all this death, in the first place)...
And so now down to their last straw, their last lie, they work overtime to make it retro-actively true... and in the process keep the money and the blood (of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq) flowing...
Well, it's a sick and perverse and criminal thing these Treasury-looters do... and I see most of the posters on this thread already know that, and already know how to respond to these liars last lying claim of "al qaida is in Iraq".
And so I guess I didn't need to post my thought... but I did anyway.
Very Nicely Put
In writing about this event, I found it very difficult to phrase. You have done a very nice job. I agree with all your assertions and finding someone who is willing to let others in on the truth is what it takes to educate the masses. Keep writing I will look forward to your next post.
Joseph
Thanks.
As far as the truth goes in this matter: It is widely known, but rarely broadcast.
The overwhelming majority of the American People have long known the truth of the matter (despite the "media's" seeming ignorance): There is no National Security purpose being served the American People in Iraq, by all these thousands of deaths of their Sons and Daughters there, and all these hundreds of billions of dollars being siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury...
There never was, and that's why they lied.
...and so now of late, we have several U.S. Senators (Republicans up for re-election in '08) suddenly on board... suddenly knowing what you and I and the majority of the American People have long known (and turned out the previous Congressional majority because of... these come-lately Republican Senators now smelling their own fear, in a terrible way).
And I added my comment to yours, because you wrote:
"It [al qaida] is a made up farce to keep the killing going in Iraq."
...because it's the truth, and stated briefly (brief being something my own posts usually aren't).
Kelly is at it again.
Does she even understand what job she is doing? Is she just reading stuff off a teleprompter without the opportunity to put the comments in context?
Are American TV viewers so brain-dead that they willingly listen to this stuff and have no problem with such fact spinning?
Harwood's clip, in response to the Bush video, presented the perfect opportunity for a follow up by Kelly, but she just moved on.
The civil war shold not have been unexpected. Especially considering the use of the military. After the First World War when defeated both Russia and Germany went through substantial civil wars. Russia went through a revolution and civil war. Germany went trough multiple conflicts driven by the left, the Spartacist uprising, as well as the right, starting with the Kapp Putsch. Jugoslavia after Tito also went through significant conflict some time after Tito's death. In any case te removal or death of an authoritarian leader led ultimately to civil war.
And I thought being of sound mind was one of the requirements to be president ?
There are some good comments here, but you're all missing the REALLY BIG LIE that's right in your face, that justifies this whole despicable war, even in the minds of the democrats and liberals here. Osama bin Laden didn't attack us. The FBI now admits that they have "no hard evidence" linking bin Laden to 9/11. Many of the hijackers have been reported alive and well in their home countries. Steel buildings don't collapse at freefall speed into their own footprint unless they are demolished with timed explosive charges. WAKE UP!!!
ok alex i will bite where are the passengers ?