MSNBC graphic, report conflated "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda in Iraq"
On the July 29 edition of MSNBC Live, during a report on the "tensions" between Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S.-led forces in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, an on-screen graphic read: "Iraq: Fighting Al Qaeda." During the segment, NBC News correspondent Jane Arraf further reported that Petraeus "is saying that the U.S. has made significant gains against Al Qaeda," adding: "[H]e says that in key areas where they have declared the states -- capitols of their Islamic state, they have managed to get rid of key leaders, but he warns that there is still a significant threat, and they are able to carry out significant attacks." However, in asserting that the U.S. military in Iraq is fighting Al Qaeda and uncritically quoting Petraeus making the same claim, MSNBC conflated the Sunni insurgent group "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with the group responsible for the 9-11 attacks, as the Bush administration has repeatedly done. Moreover, Arraf's paraphrasing of Petraeus' comments left the impression that he said "the U.S. has made significant gains against Al Qaeda" worldwide -- an assertion contradicted by the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which assessed that "the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" and established a "safehaven" in Pakistan.
The on-screen graphic shown throughout the MSNBC Live segment:
As Media Matters for America has noted, a June 28 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that President Bush's description of Al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq was rejected by "U.S. military and intelligence officials" who "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." Further, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post recently published articles distinguishing between these two groups.
Nonetheless, numerous news outlets have continued to conflate "Al Qaeda" and "Al Qaeda in Iraq" in recent weeks, as Media Matters has documented. For instance, on the July 11 edition of ABC's World News, correspondent Terry McCarthy uncritically repeated the assertion by Petraeus that "[t]he enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damaging the infrastructure by and large is Al Qaeda." A July 12 Washington Post editorial headlined "Wishful Thinking on Iraq" asserted that U.S. generals in Iraq "believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions." Further, on the July 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, during an interview with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), host Wolf Blitzer did not challenge Lieberman's numerous assertions that the U.S. military in Iraq is fighting "Al Qaeda."
Moreover, Arraf simply repeated what she reported to be Petraeus' assertion that "the U.S. has made significant gains against Al Qaeda." Arraf did not point out that this assertion, when applied to Al Qaeda generally, is undermined by the NIE, which states that the terrorist group "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership." The NIE adds that, "as a result ... the United States is currently in a heightened threat environment." From the NIE:
Al-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa'ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa'ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
- As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.
We assess that al-Qa'ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa'ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa'ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.
From the 8 a.m. ET hour of the July 29 edition of MSNBC Live:
ALEX WITT (anchor): New this morning, reports that tensions are rising between Iraq's prime minister and the man leading the U.S. forces there. NBC's Jane Arraf just finished a tour on the ground with General David Petraeus and joins us now from Baghdad with the very latest. Jane, a very good Sunday morning to you, and is there a new fight in Iraq that we need to be hearing about now?
ARRAF: Well, probably a little more of smoke than fire here, Alex. We talked to General Petraeus -- I sat down with him and asked him about those reports -- and he says while the relationship with Prime Minister Maliki has included some very candid conversations, particularly several months ago, he says those reports that Maliki has asked for him to be replaced are nonsense.
PETRAEUS [video clip]: We actually have a very good relationship. We have had some forthright conversations at times, but it's nonsense to think that he's ever asked -- I've sat in on every conversation he's ever had with President Bush in a VTC [video teleconference] since I've been here, and again, we believe we have a good relationship. These are tough issues.
ARRAF: The thing is, these are two very different personalities struggling with some really difficult issues. But people around Petraeus as well as some Iraqi officials say those reports are vastly overblown. Petraeus, as well as saying that the U.S. has made significant gains against Al Qaeda, Alex, he says that in key areas where they have declared the states -- capitols of their Islamic state, they have managed to get rid of key leaders, but he warns that there is still a significant threat, and they are able to carry out significant attacks. Alex.
WITT: Jane, let's switch gears considerably here and talk soccer, OK? Because apparently the national soccer team advanced to the finals of the Asia Cup, which is a huge deal for Iraqis, isn't it?
Just more lying from the Corporate Media. And take note of how often the NIE is contradicted in such lies, since it is so darned inconvenient for their narrative.
What's going on here is not so much conflation as equivocation: using the same word to describe something else entirely, and then using that something else to describe the first thing.
It's a major logical fallacy, but can we expect most of the highly paid members of the MSM to even know what that is, let alone care?
Definition: Equivocation, also known as amphibology, is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a word with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).
Wikipedia
Psst....MMFA. Al Queda and Al Queda in Iraq are allied terrorist organizations. These ideological and organizational relationships should be clear to anybody.
"[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."
I understand why this distinction is important. Or, at least, why it seems important from my perspective: it underscores the notion that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion, and therefore further damages the rationale for going into Iraq in the first place. It also damages the revisionist mentality and the simplified logic that lumps all the waring factions and insurgent groups in Iraq into a single terrorist threat. Not just any terrorist threat, but the one that organized and carried out the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. It also underscores the need to continue the fight where we've been drastically lacking: namely in Afghanistan and (gasp) Pakistan.
That's a good argument. A fair argument. One that should be argued. But the whole conflation argument...it seems somehow weaker. I think it's the fact that the group Al Qaeda in Iraq, by subsequently taking on the name and swearing allegance to Osama bin Laden, are the ones conflating themselves with Al Qaeda. I'm just curious with regard to what criteria we are to use to determine which Al Qaeda is or is not genuine. I understand the distinction between newcomers and old timers. I also understand the distinction between those who supposedly don't make a move without specific orders and those who have a far more fluid and improvizational approach. But is it really a winning argument to say that these people who claim to be Al Qaeda, who are in Iraq, and are targeting Americans and American interests are not Al Qaeda simply because they weren't Al Qaeda four years ago? Well, as the NIE states sort of clearly, a lot of Al Qaeda wasn't Al Qaeda four years ago.
I'm not justifying the administration line in trying to use this to justify any part of this war. Nor am I suggesting there shouldn't be critical reporting reminding Americans this faction is of our own creation. I'm simply asking why we shouldn't consider these people Al Qaeda. If they want to be Al Qaeda, I mean. There may be a perfectly good reason. I'm just not sure the ones given in this or any of the linked articles suffice.
fair enough, but the easier way to put it is that the MSM is allowing the Bush administration to engage in gross equivocation. That's what it is. It's fallacious and it's dishonest.
What with three sources from the MSM being cited here as examples of doing exactly the opposite, perhaps one should use a qualifier that doesn't paint all branches of the MSM with the same brush all of the time.
You make a good point that gets to the larger issue in my mind, namely that we are throwing around al-Qaida in general more than necessary and muddying the water. Of course there are many groups now all over the globe that are aligning themselves with al-Qaida, but few have the means or resources to strike the U.S. (including al-Qaida in Iraq). Sure, many would want to, but will never be able to.
It is a stupid policy for us to travel around the world trying to fight all of these groups with a conventional military, and then claim when the fight back that they are attacking US interests. We should focus on the groups that are actually capable of attacking us and use secondary support of local efforts to contain or eliminate those smaller groups. AQI is an example of a group that would clearly be eliminated once we leave, as evidenced by the local Sunni's already trying to get rid of them.
The fact is that most of these Al Qaeda members have actually come into Iraq from other countries. Most of these Al Qaeda members are at least in some way linked with Bin Laden's group. We've killed many high profile terrorists in Iraq. We should certainly try to hand control over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible and have them fight the terrorists in Iraq, but there's no doubt that Iraq is a major battleground in the War on Terror.
Sure. It is NOW. The issue is that bush (lowercase intentional) and the MSM keep conflating the two as if Al Queda was there to begin with, and overstating their significance as a battle force. There is no doubt that there are terrorists in Iraq NOW, but they are nowhere near the level the White House would have us believe.
I'm not sure where you get the inferrence from the MSM that Al Qaeda has been in Iraq since prior to the 2003 invasion. I certainly don't see how the conflation necessarily implies that at all. I can see how it can be used to imply it. Also, not capitalizing a person's name is not a very powerful showing of disrespect.
And understanding the complexities of this subject, one only needs to view the jihad as an religious undertaking, not bound by geographic boundaries. I am sure all those countries reported to be receiving american hardware in the near future have elements of Al-Quada residing on premises. The look-alike Twin Towers of the White House, Mr Cheney and Mr Rove certainly don't appear to " get it ".
Al Qaeda was present in Iraq prior to 2003. Period.
Proofs: Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda fighter trained in the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, was present in Iraq no later than August of 2002, long before the US invasion there in September 2003.
"Late 2001: Flees Afghanistan during U.S.-led ouster of Taliban. Passes through Iran to Iraq."
But Zarqawi was not then in Al Qaeda, you say? The I as you, if swearing allegiance to Osama bin Laden and being trained by Al Qaeda and then fighting on behalf of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, all of which Zarqawi did, is not sufficient to constitute Al Qaeda membership, then what is?
Ansar al Islam, a radical Sunni militant group, affiliated with Al Qaeda, announced its presence PRIOR to 9-11.
Q.E.D.
(Strategy meeting pre "IRAQI FREEDOM”)
Pres GWB “Well D'OH, if we can't catch/kill that bastard Osama in Afghanistan, lets invade Iraq and maybe he'll be stupid enough to come to Saddams aid and then we can kill two birds with one stone. We know he wants WMDs and Saddam has them, right Dick?”
VP DC “By Jove George you just might have something there. Why didn’t I think of that? But then I’ve been awful busy inventing WMDs to scare the hell out of the idiot citizenry, but this will reinforce our need to invade. George you may have the makings of a great President yet, say along the lines of FDR... Ha, Ha, Ho, Ho, just kidding GW. I meant Ronald Reagan.”
(Strategy meeting post “the end of combat operation “IRAQI FREEDOM” and no signs of WMDs)
VP DC “Damn it, you just can’t depend on anyone these days, we gave Saddam every opportunity imaginable to at least hide a few WMDs and the idiot bastard couldn’t even get that right. Oh, well we’re already there, now let’s just sit back and have us a good ole turkey shoot with all the terrorists who are sure to flock around Osama now. Even if Osama isn’t physically in Iraq, we’ll just say that Al Qaeda has moved in and we can’t leave until we shoot every last one of them. What do you think GW? “ Pres GW “Sounds like a plan Dick! I’ll let you and your boys at the Pentagon work out the details.”Yes there is. Lots of doubt.
The fact is that most of these Al Qaeda members have actually come into Iraq from other countries.
I think it's been pretty well documented that the group in question is comprised primarily of Iraqis.
Most of these Al Qaeda members are at least in some way linked with Bin Laden's group.
The question to which there is a good deal of debate is to the nature of the phrase 'some way linked.' The fact that they share the same name and intent links them in some way. A better question is not whether there is some link, but a significant link (are they self-financed? trained? etc).
We've killed many high profile terrorists in Iraq.
Perhaps in the context of this or any war, the question is in the criteria for classifying someone as a 'high profile terrorist.' Who qualifies as a terrorist in this war we started?
We should certainly try to hand control over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible and have them fight the terrorists in Iraq,
Going along with the rest of your post, this statement is just rich. You say, the terrorists are mainly people who wouldn't be in Iraq if not for us, and now or as soon as possible we should abandon them to fight those same people we brought?
but there's no doubt that Iraq is a major battleground in the War on Terror.
The presumption here is that there truly is such a thing as a War on Terror. One that is as important an idea to the current administration as they would have us believe (they certainly say the phrase a lot). We've abandoned many fronts of that supposed war, and have created others. The recent NIE states quite clearly that while fighting this abstract notion of Terror, the very group whose attack caused the ridiculous term to be coined in the first place is perhaps stronger today than it was then. Could it be instead that this war was such a disaster of an idea that this administration (and the government at large) is doing all it can to justify an unjustifiable situation to a people who desperately want to believe we're fighting for something. That our men and women are not dying for a terrible mistake? Is there a War on Terror at all? Where are the other major battlegrounds?
In other words, your argument could use some work. If you'd like to rework it a little, let me know.
"Going along with the rest of your post, this statement is just rich. You say, the terrorists are mainly people who wouldn't be in Iraq if not for us, and now or as soon as possible we should abandon them to fight those same people we brought"
I'm simply saying that we can't stay there forever. Don't you agree? Our military is stretched thin right now, and we need to get completely out of there within the next few years so we can deal with threats from Iran and other countries.
I'm not even sure what you mean when you refer to threats from Iran and other countries. It sounds as if you're saying we need this war to end so that we can move on to some other wars that haven't started yet.
Frankly, I don't know what to do with Iraq. I seriously question any suggestion that we're within a couple years of exiting the country (regardless of who's president). Or that we necessarily even should be within a couple of years. I have no question as whether we should have been there in the first place.
Were you or I or any of our loved ones (or any fellow citizen really), to be at risk at all, of being a victim of a 'terror attack'... were this to be so, then I'd hope our Federal Government (and the State and local authorities too), to be alert and prepared and ready willing and able, to protect us from such a 'terror attack'...
I'd hope you and I and our loved ones, to have this SECURITY... I'd more than hope it, I'd expect it.
But were I to ask any of those authorities, on the job and ready willing and able...
"Are you alert to the threat, from "al qaeda", or "al qaeda in Iraq"?
I'd hope they'd respond:
"I don't think in such idiot terms!
What? There's somebody threatening us, who travels about and identifies themselves in some way, as "al qaeda", in Iraq or any other place?"
I'd hope they'd say...
"Who talks like that? Who thinks like that? What, I'm looking for "al qaeda" or "al qaeda in Iraq"?
Just how stupid or intellectual or foolish or crazy or Bush-believing would I be, to waste my time and efforts as a Protector and Defender of the American People, were I to think in terms of "al qaeda" or "al qaeda in Iraq"?
Just how stupid or intellectual or foolish or crazy or Bush-believing indeed...
Actually, imagine the above Protector and Defender of the American People, to be ready willing and able, and on the job, on the morning of September 11, 2001...
How well would they have done, in Protecting and Defending the American People, were they to be thinking in such idiotic terms as to be looking for "al qaeda" or "al qaeda in Iraq"?
Imagine the tragic consequences, when they had to explain to the American People:
"I'm sorry so many were killed on that day... I was too busy thinking idiotically about "al qaeda" and "al qaeda in Iraq", to see and Protect and Defend the American People, from those who attacked them that day...
...too distracted by those idiot words, to see the president's "good friends" and business partners, who killed so many Americans that day."
That's what we risk, and lose, when we think in such idiot terms, as to look for our attackers by the name of "al qaeda" or "al qaeda in Iraq", when they attack us as the president's "good friends" and business partners...
...as they did on September 11, 2001.
So far the Clintons have been criticized for teaming together, begin calculating and have some 20 year plan.
I don't know if I will vote for her or not but essentially she is being criticized for hitching on to Bill's star, which every other candidate would do if they could and was Gore's biggest mistake.
She has been criticized for being calculating, which I wish every candidate would consider how every action is going to effect them.
She has been brutalized for some 20 year plan or pact with Bill. She is driven and a failure to plan is a plan to fail.
The conflation of Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda has an interesting twist for the future of US troops in Iraq. The US mission is no longer "bringing democracy to the oppressed peoples of Iraq" but "fighting the front lines of the WOT against Al Qaeda in Iraq." This allows the US to wage a war that puts them squarely at odds with the 'democratically' elected government of Iraq and their leader Al-Maliki. By arming Sunni militias (or 'tribal forces') the US's war in Iraq threatens to destabiize the majority Shia-led government. It almost appears that we are re-Baathifizing (with Sadaam-lite) Al Anbar as a way of 'stablizing' the region and supporting the US war against Al Qaeda. If we want to get kicked out of Iraq (With Honor) I guess this is one way to do it.