CNN's Malveaux uncritically aired Bush claim that Iraq terrorists "attacked us ... on September the 11th"
On the July 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during a report on President Bush's press conference about the administration's just-released Initial Benchmark Assessment Report, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux stated that according to Bush, U.S. troops "must now stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that was largely absent there before the U.S. invaded." Malveaux then aired a clip of Bush asserting: "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." Malveaux reported Bush's assertion without challenge despite numerous recent news reports that have cited intelligence officials and other experts disputing the notion that the Sunni insurgent group "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is linked to the group led by Osama bin Laden, which was responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Indeed, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, several members of the media have documented the Bush administration's efforts to conflate the two in order to misleadingly claim that the war in Iraq is now against bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
For example, a June 28 McClatchy Newspapers article -- with the headline "Bush plays Al Qaida card to bolster support for Iraq policy" -- 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.
Additionally, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post have recently published articles that distinguish between the two groups.
Malveaux made no mention of Bush's frequent conflation of the two groups, which reflects a rhetorical strategy identified by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt in his July 8 column: "As domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda." Hoyt wrote that this strategy has "political advantages" because the group "is an enemy Americans understand."
In the McClatchy article, reporter Jonathan S. Landay provided further context for this reported strategy:
Bush's use of al Qaida in his speech had strong echoes of the strategy the administration had used to whip up public support for the Iraq invasion by accusing the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of cooperating with bin Laden and implying that he'd played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Administration officials have since acknowledged that Saddam had no ties to bin Laden or 9-11.
A similar pattern has developed in Iraq, where the U.S. military has cited al Qaida 33 times in a barrage of news releases in the last seven days, and some news organizations have echoed the drumbeat. Last month, al Qaida was mentioned only nine times in U.S. military news releases.
New York Times reporters Michael R. Gordon and Jim Rutenberg addressed this issue in a July 13 article headlined "Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert":
[Bush's] references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.
There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush's critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the July 12 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: Here, lawmakers -- both Democrats and a growing number of Republicans -- are urging Mr. Bush to change course. The president accused them of crossing into his lane.
BUSH: I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops.
MALVEAUX: The troops, Mr. Bush says, must now stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that was largely absent there before the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.
MALVEAUX: And as for who's responsible for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq, Mr. Bush stressed several times his reliance on his military command and their belief that now is not the time to pull out forces.
I thought all of them died in the plane crash? Leave it to Bush to put things in the most simplest of terms for the maximum amount of fear and disinformation.
Fine. If they all died in the plane crash then why were you in favor of going into Afghanistan then?
The people who planned and financed the 9/11 attack were in Afghanistan...at least that's what we were told. Was that a lie, too?
Nerzog, That was only partly a lie. Some of them were in Afghanistan. What is still (incredibly) ignored is the fact that the attack was carried out almost exclusively by Saudis. I guess they were all completely ex-patriated? It seems that 9-11 will be one of those things so hideous in its implications that we might never face up to the facts. Maybe the historians in the time of my children's middle-age will be looking at this stuff openly?
Given the Bush family's close relationship with the Saudi Princes, I'd say it will be a loooooong time before the truth comes out.
Either Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or it did. Neocons can't make up their mind.
Bruce what did Iraq have to do with 9/11 when it actually all went down?
Hasn't this admin actually stated Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
I think that was before all their other "justifications" proved false, and they still had a slim hope of salvaging something that vaguely resembled "victory". Now that every thinking person realizes that invading Iraq was unforgiveably stupid, they need whatever excuse they can use to keep their sorry asses out of a war crimes trial.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Bush never claimed otherwise. However, since our invasion of Iraq, Al Queda has moved into that region. I won't defend us invading Iraq but that doesn't change the fact that Al Queda is now there according to news reports.
I would prefer to fight Al Quada in say.... the hills of Wyoming. I could vacation there and watch. Maybe set up a hotdog stand.
However pass ports and visa's are a problem I hear.
After review I think Iraq is just the place.
I'm sure the army will be happy to have you, and I wish you luck!
Wyoming? Don't be silly. President Numbnuts knows that, according to Tim LaHaye, Armageddon will take place in the Middle East. God told him not to pull out of Iraq, because it's our best excuse to have a huge army in the vicinity when Jeeeezzzzzuuuusssss returns. Jesus is gonna need all the Abrams tanks he can get.
Thanks for the comment Tweak. You are the perfect example of a "diehard".
Fighting them over there so blah blah blah.....
I get it, how clever of you.
Blah, blah, blah....I can only go by what our enemies are saying they are going to do to us.
If you find comfort in denial then so be it. If your only job was to protect the citizens of a country denial of the existence of a threat might be dangerous. If your enemies knew your condition.....you would be dead.
Read what they say......its free.......a great price for progressives.
http://www.wordsofourenemiesbook.com/offers/offer.php?id=IWOE001
Yesssssssss. Be afraid...be very afraid.
Hey, Tweeky, you can put that strawman back in the closet...I don't know of any liberal who claims that terrorism is not a threat. We just don't believe President Numbnuts when he says that sacrificing our troops in Iraq makes us safer at home. Maybe you can explain how that works?
I can appreciate your position, I have never been in the military, I do not know anyone in the military, I have no access to intel, I cant explain Bush's actions. But I can listen and read what those who profess to kill every last American are saying. I can only hope the right thing is being done......is there anything else I can do? Seriously....just before I do a 1 and 1/2 gainer with a twist off the highest building in town.
Well, we all can hope...but I don't see any evidence that wasting lives in Iraq is the right thing.
So when you said "I would prefer to fight Al Quada in .... Iraq," what you meant was that you would prefer that people other than you fight Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Yes....I am old.....however I can protect my mule and 5 acres. (cliché apropos to "heartland") We means all Americans.
you "can't explain bush's actions" but you know they're correct. in spite of the fact that al-qaeda has a presence in many countries all over the world, and there have been multiple attacks since we invaded in places like spain, england, and bali. yeah, we shur got em on the run there in iraq.
Tweak....so what do we do?
If the government REALLY cared about our security, don't you think they would be protecting our ports, borders, and nuclear facilities. Face facts, it doesn't matter if we stay in Iraq until 3005, people will still hate and want to destroy America. The best options we have our to try and prevent another attack by implanting better security at airlines(maybe hire people with IQs higher the 5 for example) and play defensive. They always say the best offense is a strong defense...
I agree....
OK, let's turn for the moment from the main issue raised above, namely the allegation by Media Matters that the Bush administration is attempting to mislead the American public and that an uncritical CNN reporter (who in my opinion is beautiful and smart and does deserve some credit for pointing out that al Qaeda was NOT in Iraq before the US invasion) is allowing the administration to get away with its misleading, to look instead at what our enemies have said.
While I do not have a specific quotation to cite, I do clearly recall reading that Osama bin Laden predicted that one response to the 9/11 attacks would be a loss of freedom in the US as many measures would be taken in the name of improving national security. This would, he predicted, cost the US a lot of dollars, too.
But I do not recall for sure if bin Laden also predicted a major, costly US military response to his 9/11 attacks. Does anyone here have the answer to that question?
I believe Michael Scheurer (formerly head of the bin Laden unit at the CIA) is of the opinion that our invasion of Iraq was a response so favorable to al Qaeda's aims as to be beyond bin Laden's wildest dreams.
What you prefer is your delusions to reality. I love the way the rightwing is recycling all the Vietnam rhetoric that didnt work back then to see if it will work this time. I remember the right saying we have to fight the communists over there or we will be fighting them here. It didnt fool anyone then. I guess they think we are dumber now. Perhaps they are just desperate and have no imagination to make up shiny new absurdities.
You left out the domino theory. We're now being told about how the entire area will be destabilized if we withdraw.
Shame they didn't listen before the invasion when a lot of people were saying Iraq would be destabilized by invading.
i think people are dumber now solon thanks to all forms of mind numbing no need to think for yourself anymore we will spoonfeed you the info media as zach de la rocha said "where is the fury that they had in 66"
All of them?
ok maybe not all
On a side note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070713/bush-iraq/
WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday appeared resigned to the fact that the Iraqi parliament is going to take August off, even though it has just eight weeks to show progress on military, political and economic benchmarks prescribed by the United States.
"My understanding is at this juncture they're going to take August off, but, you know, they may change their minds," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.
"You know, it's 130 degrees in Baghdad in August," he said, sympathetically.
Snow was reminded that U.S. troops will be continuing to fight throughout August in the heat.
"You know, that's a good point," Snow said. "And it's 130 degrees for the Iraqi military."
The White House and other top officials previously had worked to persuade the parliament to remain at work, saying it would send a bad signal if the Iraqi lawmakers went on vacation while U.S. troops were fighting and dying.
Snow said that a scheduled Sept. 15 progress report on by Gen. David Petraeus was important, yet said he also said that was not a deadline. He said progress can be made even if the parliament is not in session.
"You're assuming that nothing is going on," Snow said.
"Let's also see what happens because quite often when parliaments do not meet, they are also continuing meetings on the side. And there will be progress, I'm sure on a number of fronts," the spokesman said.
The Iraqi parliament's vacation plans have been repeatedly criticized by U.S. lawmakers. But the U.S. Congress will be on vacation from Aug. 3 to Sept. 4, if it sticks to current plans.
The Congress itself has been criticized for how little it works.
On Thursday, the White House gave Congress a progress report that showed the Iraqi government was making unsatisfactory progress on many political and military milestones. At a news conference, President Bush defended the buildup of U.S. troops as well as his decisions on troop numbers earlier in the conflict.
Bush said that when he asked Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief during the initial invasion in March 2003, whether he had enough troops, he told him he did. Bush said he recalled sitting in a meeting downstairs at the White House asking each commander responsible for different aspects of the operations that led to toppling Saddam Hussein.
"I said to each one of them `Do you have what it takes?' Are you satisfied with the strategy?' And the answer was `Yes,' " Bush said.
Asked whether Bush was trying to blame Franks for the bad course of the war, Snow rose to defend Franks and said historians would have to judge the correctness of U.S. strategic military decisions.
"I think Gen. Franks did a superb job," Snow said.
Well at least Snow didn't say "They volunteered" when reminded that our troops would be fighting in 120 degree heat. I guess that talking point has been officially retired?
Snow was reminded that U.S. troops will be continuing to fight throughout August in the heat.
God, I'm so happy he was called on that nonsensical logic. I only heard the first part, his point that it gets to 130 degrees there and it might be too hot for lawmaking as I was driving home tonight. I wanted to punch my car radio because the first thing I thought was "WHAT ABOUT OUR TROOPS, YOU JERK?!"
They really have no shame. And Tony Snow might rival Cheney for King of Shameless.
Bruce,
Doesn't what you say then prove the point that Bush and his little band of thugs invaded a soverign country that had zero to do with attacking us on 9/11.....
That seems to be a war crime that you are defending and yet proved by saying that al-Queda WASN'T there before but is now! Which is the problem today but wasn't upto the day before they invaded Iraq.
So by keeping the war going are we not allowing a perpetuation of a horrible crime to continue based on the false premise of the attack in the first place?
Al Franken said this once on his talk show and was blasted by the right-wing attack machine for what..... daring to speak the facts?
Actually Brucelace, if you have ever watched TV in the past 4 years, Bush did attempt to link the region of pre-American invaded Iraq to the attacks on September 11th, basically calling it a "haven" for al-Qaeda.
[link to www.csmonitor.com]
[link to seattlepi.nwsource.com]
[link to www.cnn.com]
[link to www.cnn.com]
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Bush never claimed otherwise [that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11]
Bush has, however, repeatedly tried to link the two with verbal gymnastics.
More importantly, though, Cheney has pushed the idea that Saddam Hussein was involved in some way on multiple occasions, or makes pains to leave open the idea that it was that way. Maybe his boss oughta clear things up for him.
I won't defend us invading Iraq but that doesn't change the fact that Al Queda is now there according to news reports.
But you are buying in to the same propoganda! It's a different Al Queda in Iraq than in Afganastan. Nobody in Iraq was even remotely connected to 911. There is an "Al Queda in Iraq" only because we are there occupying the country.
Al Queda also exists in other muslim countries and they will attack us there too if we invade and occupy them.
Actually, Al Quaeda is in Iraq because there is an organization that calls itself "Al Quada In Iraq" currently operating there. That they call themselves "Al Quaeda in Iraq" affiliates them with the people who planned 9/11 exactly in the same way that me calling my apartment Democratic Headquarters of Takoma Park affiliates me with the Democratic Party of Maryland- that is, not at all. It is to Bush's great benefit, however, that the guys in Iraq have taken on the trade name "Al Quaeda." It helps him and the other "Islamo-Fascist" paranoid nutballs to claim that the same organization that attacked us on 9/11 is currently operating in Iraq. It isn't, and they know it, but what they know and what they tell us has always been very different now, hasnt it?
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Bush never claimed otherwise.
Bruce, you need to recheck your facts. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, and Rice have claimed many, many times that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Then, later, Bush had to admit in public that there's no evidence of any direct link between Iraq and 9/11. But even after that retraction, administration members and people in the right-wing "media" continue to repeat the lie that Saddam and Iraq were involved in 9/11.
I can't even respond to posters who claim Bush never linked Iraq and 9/11. You would have had to have been asleep throughout 2003 and 2004 to believe that. Arguing with people who insist Bush and Cheney never made the connection is really a pointless exercise- they've mastered the art of self-delusion, and aren't really susceptible to reasoned argument or facts.
Well, they also believed Bush when he said "We've never been about 'stay the course' ". They also believe every lie Rush Limbaugh tells them.
Bruce, how can you say that bush (lowercase intentional) never claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11. He did it ALL THE TIME. He may have never actually said the words "Iraq was involved in 9/11". but he made sure that was the message coming across by constantly conflating the two. I have heard him literally hundreds of times use the words "Iraq" and "9/11" in the same sentence, in a way that was clearly meant to imply Iraq's involvement. And when it wasn't bush saying it, it was his boss, cheney (again, intentional). Remember this? Uhhh...It's been pretty well confirmed that Mohammed Atta met with high level Iraqi agents in Prague.....
Then when cheney was called out on that comment, he claimed he never said it. When the tape of the comment was played for him, he tried to spin it by saying that it was the British or someone else who made the claim.
it is ridiculous to claim that bush never said Iraq was involved. It was a cornerstone of his argument to invade Iraq.
Yo, Bruce, WTF, brother!!! bush and co never claimed a connect between 9/11 and Saddam?! Heck dude I didn't realize you decided to go ahead with that lobotomy after all . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htmy
This is like a long protracted joke that the media has been working with the administration over the past years to setup. Conflating Al-Qaeda in Iraq with Al-Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Mentioning Al-Qaeda in Iraq much more disproportionately than any other part of the insurgency/civil war.
Along comes Bush again right on time with the punchline.
Is Malveaux's email address out of date? I got a failure notice.
Maybe she decided to "cut and run".
News Analysis, Jalal Ghazi, Mar 02, 2006
Editor's Note: There are reports that Al Qaeda fighters are being driven out of Iraq, into Afghanistan and Jordan, by Iraqi insurgents...
...There are now reports in Arab media, however, that Al Qaeda fighters are leaving Iraq because the resistance has turned against them...
...Riyad Alam Dean wrote in Al Watan Al Arabi that the American administration has decided to turn its strategy in Iraq "180 degrees" by dropping previous plans to hand Iraq to the Shiites. Instead, the United States has decided to empower Sunnis and use them to undermine Iran's role in Iraq...
http://tinyurl.com/2sjlb9
If you readers want some shocking revelation go to the link provided. Bush is using false flags again to justify is war. There may not be any Al Qaedas in Iraq at all at least not enough to warrant the surge of troops.
But it's so much easier to divide everybody up into "good guys" and "evil doers", buy a little American flag, and pray for victory.
Harley, will you take me to your next state department meeting at the pentagon, I understand the hor' dourves are great....as is the main course.
"hors d'ouvres".
Because of that, you can't go. You can only go to events which serve "appetizers".
I haven't had a meal there in years because I can't figure out how to make that funny "e" at the end of "entree"...
"hors d'ouvres".??
FREEDOM NUGGETS!
What you need is the "character map". In XP
Start > Run > type in chamap Enter. Let me know if you need more help from there. I just back from Sweden so I had to use it make all those cool Swedish words like Målmo.
or use the Windows alt key codes.
That's the way my wife does it, and Malmo is a town in Sweden. I would prefer not to comment on the swedish food.
Ŵǒŵﺇ Ђαţ'ş ßíīċħïħ'ﺇ
Šδ đőέѕ MäļMõ ŦäšťΣ lĭĸĕ čћ٦çЌёп¿
Please....I will wear my hemp jacket over my tie dyed shirt that says "Bush Sucks", leather sweat band, beads, Birkenstock's with hacky sack and booger rag.
Mom?
I guess that is better than your usual wear. That is a sheet with a hood a Bush is God patch and jackboots.
Believe me if it was great Chertoff would not have had a gut feeling.
Foolish public! Chertoff has his "gut" connected to thousands of electronic sensors that feed and give him tactile feedback and sophisticated intelligence information. His lower bowels alone have the computing power beyond anything previously know to man. Of course we can’t know that it’s supposed to be a secret. Code name "Project Pepto". OK now I hope you’re happy.
The stumblebum Republican Bush is flailing like the court jester to over emphasize Al Qaeda's role in the sectarian violence that is the Iraq occupation. He wants to invoke Bin Laden in his argument, but has no demonstrable desire to ever bring the man to justice.
Anyway, it's the constitutional responsibility of Congress, and within their power, to set the course on military missions. Bush is not commander over Congress, nor is he commander over the people of the United States. He is commander of the military only. It is the president's duty to carry out the strategic mission given to him by Congress.
He's frustrated now that the let's scare the shi-t out of them so we can do whatever we want card doesn't work anymore. The truth is no one takes him seriously anymore. He's lost his credibility. That's very bad because these are dangerous times we live in, and not knowing whether your leaders are telling you the truth or attempting to use fear to control you is an awful feeling.
I'm not sure I agree with you based on the exact verbage you've used. I think military strategy is the domain of the generals, and based on his role as C in C, also of bush (lowercase intentional). HOWEVER, I would contend that the congress has a valid role in setting POLICY. If the congress were able to pass a veto-proof bill (2/3 of both the house and the senate) calling for the withdrawl of troops, then bush (again, intentional) would be REQUIRED to begin withdrawl. Otherwise he would be violating the LAW, and subject to impeachment. Wait a minute...
Of course, you are correct (avoidance of right intentional ; ) that Congress does not set the strategy. Congress is the decider. They decide the mission (to invade, troop levels, tour lengths, withdrawal, etc.) the generals strategize and the prez carries out the mission set by Congress.
And this usurpation of executive power is reason enough to impeach, because even with a veto proof majority, the prez still has his dictatorial signing statements.
It seems to me that she did challenge his assertion by prefacing it with the reminder that al quaeda was NOT in Iraq before. I do not see the criticism unless she had to challenge it after and not before. Or what really is the complaint here. She is not just quoting him without pointing out how he is wrong. this is nit picking.
Well john, sometimes that's what we do--pick at nits!
I guess the MMFA opinion is that she did not cite any sources or expand on the evidence that pre occupation Iraq had ZERO to do with AL Qrazy or the hijackers from Saudi Arabia who crashed into the world trade center bldg just minutes before the pre planted explosives brought them down.
This is definately NOT nit picking. Al Quaida is sort of a brand name now, adopted by many little rag tag groups and some more organized. This eludes the press, who likes their stories of any significance to be simple and easy for a channel surfer to digest.
Plus the Arab world is so complex in its history and intrigues that it makes our heads spin. But we still have the simplistic terms that give many, many people the impression that there are three or four groups involved and that's it.
Yeah, my daughter played softball on a PeeWee team called the Red Sox. Does that mean she was involved in winning the World Series?
Actually, John Henry, she is QUOTING bush (lowercase intentional) referencing Al Qaeda as the group "that was largely absent before the war". The FACT IS that Al Qaeda was ENTIRELY absent before the war. That is the mis-information the FAILED TO CHALLENGE.
She also failed to challenge his assertation that this is the group bombing people in Iraq is the same group that attacked us on 9/11. That is TOTAL BULLS**T.
Apparently my sentence structure is total bulls**t as well. Dubya must be rubbing off on me. Oh GAWD!
Ted Turner must be turning over in his grave.
Al Qaeda is in Pakistan. We know that but refuse to go after them.
The group in Iraq is an entirely different entity.
We'll get attacked by the group in Pakistan and Bush will say, "This is why we must continue fighting on in Iraq."
How can anybody doubt Gore would have made a better president.
6 years and and $12 billion ($12,000,000,000) a month later and Al Qaeda is as strong as it's been since before 9/11.
Think about that.
If you don't want to cry out of frustration you aren't a real American.
I LOVE HOW EVERY TIME THE WHITE HOUSE IS ABOUT TO GET SOME BAD NEWS THEY BRING OUT THE BOGGIE MAN TO HELP THEM. ABC REPORTER MR. ROSS IS ALWAYS THE FIRST TO GET THE LEAK FROM MR. ROVE CIA THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE ABOUT TO STRIKE. I LOVE IT!!! NOW HERE COMES THE RIGHT-WING CNN, ABC, MSNBC, CBS, NBC AND MOSTLY FOX NEWS TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO GET US AGAIN. AND IT WILL HELP BUSH TO GET MORE TIME IN IRAQ!!!
I just had a religious zealot tell me with absolute certainty that Iran and Al Quaida terrorists are working together in Iraq. Of course its all the same Al Quaida that attacked us on 9/11 to him...this was not a conversation by the way, he was delivering this news in the form of a very loud lecture. He claims that Al Quaida began in Yemen, and that Al Quaida terrorists killed his brother. He refused to say when.
Now just so I have this straight myself: the Saudis (and Bin Laden) are Sunnis...the Mullahs in Iran are Shia?
Mary, there you go again trying to bring logic into the discussion. You know the righties are incapable of using logic. Please try to remember you're engaged in a battle of wits with people who are unarmed. You're using reasoning and facts while all they have to work with are talking points they've been spoon-fed by their mullahs, Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly. It's just not fair.
Yes I must remember that righties are just lefties with their brains kicked out. (apologies to Swedes and Norwegians)
They are so sure of the facts, that they must talk fast and loudly, pausing only to sigh in righteous indignation!
I know im not the fastest gun in the west, but im a little confused right now(not hard to do). The group that is responsible for 911 is Al Qaeda. Now, Susan said our troops "must now stay in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda, the terrorist group that was largely absent there before the U.S. invaded". What she is saying is that b/c we invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda has now moved terrorists to Iraq and is now fighting us there. Is that incorrect? Is it a different Al Qeada? Are there 2 Al Qaedas? If so, does it matter? Dont they both want us dead? If these arent the same people that attacked us on 911, dont they still want to kill us?
In summary, the majority of you MM posters appear to have concluded that the Islamists on both sides of Islam (Sunni and Shiite) are rather distinct and uncoordinated in their actions against the U.S., the non-Muslim EU, and those moderate (to the extent they have the guts to ID themselves as such) Muslims who oppose them.
Does this really make sense to you? You can’t imagine that they could coordinate their efforts to a large extent, putting off to a future date which of the two will prevail in the new Islamic world or, alternatively, how power will be shared between the two and among the surviving Islamic states?
What about the old maxim: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
Could it just possibly be that Iraq is the key to the whole war between radical Islam and the non-Muslim world, that failure to win in Iraq means a sharp reversal of momentum and dire consequences for the side that loses? If so, shouldn’t we be doing all we can to win that war? Are we so short-sighted that we can’t see that?
What is your alternative to winning in Iraq?
The objective of war is to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. The actions by the majority in the U.S. congress and the majority (read “left”) of the U.S. media are doing the exact opposite. Isn’t that treasoness behavior by definition?
No policy differences arent treason. Accusing people of treason because you disagree with them on policy is ignorant though. You are apparantly forgetting that Iraq was a SECULAR nation before we invaded and there is no reason to believe the people there would be susceptable to radical Islamic rhetoric once they have some measure of stability. Iraq was no threat when we invaded. There is no reason to believe they will be once we leave. One of the biggest threats here is turning this into a Holy War. We have no reason to do that. Radical Islamic terrorists are a huge threat, we ought to treat them that way but we dont have to treat all of Islam as if they are plotting to take over the world. We have long had a strong relationship with Indonesia and they are the worlds most populace Islamic nation. Invading random countries is a stupid way to fight a radical Islamic threat and causes more problems than it solves. We are not going to bomb our way out of this problem we need co-operation, we arent going to get it as long as we use terrorism as an excuse for imperialism and hegemony. Bush sold this war on lies that most of the world never bought. The rightwing wants to demand that even though those lies have long since been obvious we take them seriously anyway. Its time to stop that. We need to spend more time going after our actual enemies and less time making more of them.
SOLON,
There’s a lot more than just policy differences at work here. There’s outright aid and comfort to the enemy which I argue is treason.
Iraq a secular nation: Agreed. Would the Iraqis be influenced by Islamist (I’ll substitute the word “Islamist” for Islamic here, which is what I think you intended) rhetoric. Hell no. It ain’t rhetoric that’s influencing Iraqis. It’s the perception of who is riding the strong horse. Thanks to the left wing politicians and media in the U.S., we are not necessarily perceived that way 24/7. If you think the guys who saved you from Saddam are about ready to cut and run, you quit giving them intel and hunker down to see who is going to be the winner. Rhetoric has about zero influence.
Of course Iraq was no threat. We didn’t know that before we went in though. We thought they were close to having a viable WMD arsenal. Turns out they had the chemicals and biologicals but still had a long way to go on the nuclears. Iraq is not a threat but it is the central front in the GWOT.
Of course we’re not treating all Islam that way. (I know you’re one of the sharper guy’s on this forum and I sincerely don’t mean this as an insult, but do you understand what I mean when I distinguish between “Islamic” or just “Muslim” and an “Islamist”?).
We’re not at war with Iraq. Iraq is the caldron that both sides are pouring their main efforts into - pretty much as Guadalcanal was the caldron in the Pacific war in 1942. Not really much going on there at first, just a few thousand troops and an airfield under construction by the Japanese. If they completed it and moved more assets in, New Guinea (esp. Port Moresby) would be vulnerable and Australia/New Zealand right after that. We went in and we lost thousands of sailors in sea battles off the coast and later thousands of Marines. The Japanese poured tens of thousands of troop reinforcements into the battle. Just as we could not afford to lose in Guadalcanal after it attracted such a large reinforcement effort from the enemy, we can’t afford to lose in Iraq which has commanded the enemy’s’ central efforts in this war.
I’ve been asked “what do you mean by winning; how do you define victory?”. Victory in Iraq will pretty much be achieved when the new government can hold its own against the Al Sadr’s, the suicide bombers, the infiltrators, and the genuine native insurgents - and make the needed political compromises internally which encourage ethnic cooperation. What will be the hallmark of the ultimate victory in the GWOT: when little kids all over the world are no longer taught to hate infidels.
It’s a binary world. The alternative is victory for the Islamists and they have already made alarming headway in the EU!
As for Indonesia, are you saying that there are no Islamists there and, if there are, that they haven’t caused any trouble?
Now, when you say we are (or the current administration makes us) imperialists and hegemons, you lose me completely. Maybe, for the last century at least, you could give me an example of our “imperialism” and compare it with that of the other major world powers.
Okay, SOLON, fine. You say we’re going after the wrong enemies (or what exactly are you saying?). Who are these “actual enemies” that we should be concentrating on?
Now, you folks can pick on the strategies and the tactics all you want. You can have all the “policy disagreements” you want. But I say that this is not what’s going on with most Democrats and some Republicans as well as with the bulk of the media. It appears to be a deliberate effort to bring about the country’s defeat in Iraq. What other motive is there for that than political power?
Ciao
Sic'im SOLON.
What a bunch of nonsense, but I'll point out the most offensive part here.
"Of course Iraq was no threat. We didn’t know that before we went in though."
We sure did know this. You must have been listening to Bush, and no one else, over the last 4 years to not know this. Bush even claimed in a recent statement that the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's fault because he didn't let us reinsert the weapons inspectors, but that's catagorically false. The reporter talked about a war of Bush's own choosing, and Bush said that "Saddam chose the course!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/who-chose-the-war-mr-pr_b_56086.html
"We thought they were close to having a viable WMD arsenal."
No one who had half a brain and was keeping up with the news thought that right before we invaded. There was clear evidence that he didn't have WMD's, and that he was nowhere close to having a viable arsenal. The inspectors asked Bush to not invade because they thought our intelligence had been wrong and their inspections proved that. A week or so before the invasion, the IAEA said "After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq." http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
"Turns out they had the chemicals and biologicals but still had a long way to go on the nuclears."
This is not true either. They did not have viable chemical or biological weapons or precursors. How can you be so ill-informed yet act so superior?
"Iraq is not a threat but it is the central front in the GWOT."
They sure are a threat now. I happen to be among the minority in the liberals I know who think we need to stay in Iraq until we can stabilize the nation, even if it takes decades. We broke it, so I think we own it, even if it's going to be a bear to resolve. Even given that, it doesn't mean that they are the central front. Our fighting there, the way Bush is doing it, is making things worse, not better. The Iraq War, as waged by George Bush, is our largest failure, and our biggest problem, but not the central front.
While we're waiting for SOLON to come back and kick your butt a little bit, just let me point out that you are completely full of it. You're two posts so far have revealed the use of at least FIVE distinct discredited right-wing talking points: providing aid and comfort to the enemy, liberal media, cut & run, domino theory, and last but certainly not least, we thought they were close to having nuclear weapons. ALL of these are bulls**t. BTW, they didn't have chemical or biological weapons either. All we've found is a handful of long forgotten , rusted out, obsolete cannisters found buried in the desert. But according to Faux News, THEY'VE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. You watch Fox news don't ya? You seem sincer, but you are clearly confused by the right-wing rhetoric.
Do you know the sound that is made when s**t hits the fan? MAREEEENNE. Just kidding, I'm an Army guy.
Seriously, that is some big-time speculation you got goin' there. The fact is that the Shia and Sunni are involved in a major civil war, a fact that has only just recently been admitted to by this administration. They are fighting a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The reason we are now banging the war drums against Iran is that bush (lowercase intentional) is hell-bent on protecting Saudi Arabia AT ALL COSTS. The close business relationships between his family and the royal family make this necessary.
You also seem to be under the mistaken impression that we are in Iraq because of our fight against islamic terrorism. This is not at all the case. We are in Iraq because of oil. Not to protect the oil, or to get the oil, but to help the Saudis and the oil companies CONTROL THE FLOW of oil. Supply and demand set the price of oil. OPEC strictly controls the output of oil from the arab states, Saudi Arabia controls OPEC. and Saddam Hussein didn't want to play nice with the others. As Greg Palast points out in his book "Armed Madhouse", Saddam Hussein was messing around with the OPEC controls. If he got a little itchy to tweak the royal family, he would just open the pipeline and flood the market, which wreaked havoc on oil prices. We are there to keep the oil IN THE GROUND. Doing so helps to control the availability of oil, thereby keeping the price at $70 a barrel or more, which means continued record profits for Exxon and the others. The "war on turr" is just a convenient smokescreen that is being used, and perpetuated, to ensure bidness as usual.
BTW, my alternative for winning is Iraq is Get the F**k OUT!
JSCOT,
A salute to you and a sincere “Thank you for your service”. I was only a jarhead for three years but did make it to Korea in early ’52.
Right about the Shia and the Sunni. They hate each other’s guts but right now we’re the guys that are sticking in their craw so my theory is that there’s probably some cooperation between these two factions of Islam going on. In fact, I think there are news reports of some Al Qaeda accommodation in Iran to say the least about possible cooperation. (Don’t know about Hezbollah being supported by the Saudis but wouldn’t be surprised).
OIL! You are right on. The Saudis, who obviously support Al Qeada and the spread of jihad throughout the world with petrel dollars, could not allow Sadaam to take over their oil, nor to control Iranian oil either, thus there willingness to support both the Kuwait invasion and the Iraq invasion. But, as Steyn put it, "Oil isn't the principal Saudi export, ideology is - petroleum merely bankrolls it."
Oil is the engine of civilization. Husk all the corn ears you want, put up all the solar panels and wind machines you want and we still have to have LOTS of oil and lots more of it with passing time as China and India, for example, ramp up as the new super powers. That’s a large element of the GWOT but I’d argue that in the long view that ain’t really the bottom line. There’s that nasty little business about the Islamist view of Islam and the intolerance for any government except an Islamic government anywhere in the world.
I can’t buy into your last paragraph: “The "war on turr" is just a convenient smokescreen that is being used, and perpetuated, to ensure bidness as usual. “
Cheers!
Well OLDMARINE, if you were in Korea in '52, then you sure earned your stripes. I was stationed there in the early 80's and I vividly recall what a miserable, though vital, piece of real estate that is. Sweltering summers, and winter that's colder than a witch's teat.
I have to comment on your supposition that there could be some co-operation between the Shia and Sunni against us. Again, that is pure speculation. There is NO EVIDENCE of such co-operation. The fact is that our folly has created a Shia majority, and we are actually helping to arm the Sunni as damage control for our little "mistake", and to help protect Saudi interests. They are in a civil war, and we are stuck in the middle. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is NOT the same bunch that attacked us on 9/11, as dubya would have us believe. This is a newly formed bunch of wannabes who are trying to model themselves after Al Qaeda, and they are a very small part of the threat against our troops in Iraq. As long as they have access to weapons, and a desire to cause trouble, then they are something of a threat, but not at the level we faced on 9/11.
As far as Steyn's comment (that right-wing goofball in Chicago?) about the Saudis' main export, make no mistake, it is all about oil. The royal family, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, are mostly secular. They pay lip service to the clerics and radicals, perhaps even helping to fund them as a way of staying out of their crosshairs, but their god is money from oil, and their main ally is George W. Bush. Their only concern in the "war on turr" is to keep singing "Onward Christian Soldiers". As long as we have their backs, they can keep on pumping that black gold, and keep swimming in green.
As for Hezbollah, that is the Iranian Foreign Legion. They are in no way connected to Saudi Arabia.
That's about all I can handle for now. It's getting late, and my ol' lady is calling... : )
NOMONBUSH,
Well you’ve got your facts and I’ve got mine. Truckloads of Iraqi-made artillery rounds and the artillery/mortars to deliver them were intercepted by the Jordanians as the weapons were on their way down from Syria - shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Lots of artillery rounds containing biological stuff were found also. As for the nuclear arms progress we really don’t have much to go on. Many large convoys of loaded trucks (based on IR imaging to tell whether or not they were loaded or empty) were observed headed for Syria in the weeks and months prior to the invasion. You can check all of this.
As for talking points, “Bush lied. People died” is one a left wing TP. Also, in keeping with the idea that “a lie repeated often enough will become the truth”, the Demos and their buds in the media keep insisting that the Democrats in congress were fooled by this hayseed from Texas regarding pre-war intelligence. That still gets a big yawn from my side.
I’ve said before that I think we (those on the right in the admin) went into Iraq for two reasons: (1) We really did believe the pre-war intel (along with the Brits, the French, and the Democrats in the congress) about the Iraqi WMD effort, and (2) we wanted to show the Wahabbis that what happened to us in Mogadishu was not really how we fight (at least when Republicans are in charge). Underlying all of this, of course - as pointed out numerous times by all and most recently by JSCOTT) there is the control of the world’s main sources of oil. If the militant Islamists take over the Middle East, it’s ‘game over’ in terms of a viable global economy except via black mail.
JSCOTT,
I watch Fox News, read a book now and then, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and, just to stay fresh on the left wing point of view, read the “news” (read “propaganda”) section of the LA Times. How’s about you? Your “news” sources, that is?
On cooperation between the Shia and Sunni, are you absolutely certain about that? My common sense tells me that their must be and I’m pretty sure that Al Qeada is accommodated by the Iranians. No? Are you sure?
I can’t go along with you completely on the Saudi royal family being secular, i.e. I doubt if there’s uniformity of opinion on that throughout the Saudi royalty. Most of the old boys in charge may be secular, but they also know that Al Qaeda would love to knock them off. In a world where Islam is on the rise, and it IS right now, the Saudis want to be out in front of this tidal wave of fundamentalism. I think this pretty much reflects your assessment of Saudi leadership, i.e. their God is oil. Peculiar (well, not really) that you throw in George Bush as their main ally. I’d say it’s more like the whole developed world. We all need oil.
[ Big break in my thought train here to watch the 8th stage of the TDF…]
True about Hezbollah. I’m just saying I can see it in the Saudis interests to be supporting Islamist causes regardless of the fact that Hezbolla is an “Iranian Foreign Legion” (good descriptor). Hezbollah has emerged as the more virule Islamist force in the Palestinean-Lebanon-Isreali area. The Saudis probably give more to Fatah since Abbas appears to be more inclined to reach an accommodation with the Israelis and that’s in the interests of “business as usual”
"The actions by the majority in the U.S. congress and the majority (read “left”) of the U.S. media are doing the exact opposite. Isn’t that treasoness behavior by definition?"--oldmarine
The media's job is to do their best to print the objective truth as they see it. It isn't their job to carry water for Congress or the President in fear of being called "treasoness[sic]" for it.
I would like to address the idea that the U.S. military must stay in Iraq until the Iraqi government can stabilize the country. From the reports I have heard recently, I ask: what Iraqi government? Apparently the fragile coalition has fallen apart (yet again) and many of the Iraqi politicians have fled the country. Our soldiers continue to patrol, and are shot at and blown up. They flush one area out, only to have the insurgents move and then come back. This has been going on for 4 years. Some soldiers have been deployed for 5 tours! My God, is this rational?
The same thing as in Vietnam: the military stayed for years trying to prop up a weak, corrupt administration. Despite our military might and economic clout. Listen to the retired generals, who say that the solution there will involve diplomacy primarily, involving the surrounding countries. And we must withdraw.
The Iraqi Prime Minister just announced that the US is invited to leave any time they feel like it. Whatever happened to we'll stand down when they stand up?
People look at the bigger picture. We have the finest military in the world stationed on both sides of Iran. Ready and able to strike killing blows.
We could end the insurgency in Iraq in a metter of days if we fought them as we did the Germans in WWII.
And finally, America has not suffered from suicide bombings due to Iraq being a magnet for all the Islamofacists.
Wake up, Bush has a reasonably good plan if America would only tell the bleeding heart liberals to crawel back under their rocks.
gboettner, I'm interested in subscribing to your newsletter.
Blame it perhaps on the trauma of combat, or a renegade commander, but some horrible atrocities are happening in Iraq, with the eyes of the Arab world watching:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070715/ap_on_re_us/marines_iraq_shooting;_ylt=Agi3Bp7jXLyErcQ.qvkiLI6s0NUE
MARY59,
How can you say the Iraqi government “coalition” has fallen apart. They’re still in charge of Iraq. I think they’re more together than left and right here in this country. Malaki just put the world on notice that the Iraqis are ready to take over their own defense. Iraqis are like anyone else in terms of having some pride and guts.
Ask any Viet Nam vet and 90% of them will say that we were winning the last time he was there and that it was the left in the U.S. who turned that war into a victory for the Communists. And as far as our troops go, they keep extending their enlistments in spite of multiple deployments. That’s because they’re patriots. As with that war, the GWOT won’t be won by military efforts alone. It will be won or lost ideologically here in the U.S.
Regarding your statement “we must withdraw”. What’s your prescription for what we do after that?
Atrocities? How about severed heads on Muslim TV, deliberately putting innocent women and children in the line of fire, and executing women for improper clothing?
The main difference between the movie "Wag the dog" and this repeat mumbojumbo is that in Bush's version people die and get blown up for real. Are the Twin Towers still there? Like the film "World Trade Center", Wag the dog does a disservice of naive propagandizement.