CNN has yet to note that, notwithstanding McCain's criticism of Obama, McCain reportedly doesn't expect Al Qaeda in Iraq would "be taking a country" if "we left" Iraq
SUMMARY: After airing several reports in February highlighting Sen. John McCain's assertion that "if we left [Iraq], [Al Qaeda in Iraq] wouldn't be establishing a base ... they'd be taking a country," CNN has yet to follow up by noting that McCain reportedly does not believe that assertion. According to The New York Times, "[f]ew, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [Iraq], a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal."
On four occasions during February 27 and 28 broadcasts, while highlighting an exchange between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain over the future of Al Qaeda in Iraq, CNN aired reports that uncritically repeated McCain's assertion that, "if we left [Iraq], [Al Qaeda in Iraq] wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base; they'd be taking a country." But on April 19, The New York Times reported that "[f]ew, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia [Iraq], a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal. The situation they fear and which Mr. McCain himself sometimes fleshes out is that an American withdrawal would be celebrated as a triumph by Al Qaeda and create instability that the group could then exploit to become more powerful." The article went on to quote McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, as saying of a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq: ''[Y]ou might not necessarily see a single entity taking charge." However, since the Times' article, CNN has yet to follow up on its prior reporting by noting* that McCain apparently does not believe his previous assertion that "if we left" Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq would "be taking a country."
McCain was addressing Obama's remarks during the February 26 Democratic presidential debate when he made his Al Qaeda in Iraq statement. During the debate, co-moderator Tim Russert asked Obama: "[D]o you reserve a right as American president to go back into Iraq, once you have withdrawn, with sizable troops in order to quell any kind of insurrection or civil war?" Obama replied:
OBAMA: Now, I always reserve the right for the president -- as commander in chief, I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests. And if Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad. So, that is true, I think, not just in Iraq, but that's true in other places. That's part of my argument with respect to Pakistan.
I think we should always cooperate with our allies and sovereign nations in making sure that we are rooting out terrorist organizations, but if they are planning attacks on Americans, like what happened in 9-11, it is my job -- it will be my job as president to make sure that we are hunting them down.
On February 27, McCain said of Obama's comments:
McCAIN: I am told that Senator Obama made the statement that if Al Qaeda came back to Iraq after he withdraws -- after the American troops are withdrawn -- then he would send military troops back, if Al Qaeda established a base in Iraq. I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda -- it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq. And my friends, they wouldn't -- if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country. And I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to Al Qaeda.
But as Media Matters for America documented, McCain falsely suggested that Obama had said that Al Qaeda currently has no presence in Iraq. In fact, Obama was speaking of the future and said: "[I]f Al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad." Notwithstanding, CNN uncritically aired McCain's attack on Obama in two different reports by CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley, which aired on the February 27 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight, the 10 and 11 p.m. ET hours of the February 27 edition of Anderson Cooper 360, and the 9 a.m. ET hour of the February 28 edition of CNN Newsroom.
A Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database found that CNN has not subsequently noted reports that McCain and his campaign have backtracked from McCain's February 27 assertion that Al Qaeda in Iraq would "be taking a country" following a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
From the April 19 New York Times article:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wants to begin withdrawing troops, has spoken of leaving some troops behind to fight Al Qaeda, deal with Sunni insurgents, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly help the Iraqi military. She warned last year of the dangers if Iraq turned into a failed state "that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda."
Few, including Mr. McCain, expect Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni group, to take control of Shiite-dominated Iraq in the event of an American withdrawal. The situation they fear and which Mr. McCain himself sometimes fleshes out is that an American withdrawal would be celebrated as a triumph by Al Qaeda and create instability that the group could then exploit to become more powerful.
"Al Qaeda in Iraq would proclaim victory and increase its efforts to provoke sectarian tensions, pushing for a full-scale civil war that could descend into genocide and destabilize the Middle East," Mr. McCain said this month. "Iraq would become a failed state. It could become a haven for terrorists to train and plan their operations."
Randy Scheunemann, Mr. McCain's senior foreign policy adviser, said during a recent conference call with reporters that in the event of an American pullout, "you might not necessarily see a single entity taking charge." But such a withdrawal could empower Shiite militias in the south and Kurds in the north, leaving Al Qaeda "free to try to impose its will" and lead to increased sectarian violence that "would be very likely to draw neighbors into the conflict," he said.
From the February 27 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
CROWLEY: As she [Sen. Hillary Clinton] battles in the primary arena, Barack Obama once again finds himself in the middle of a premature general campaign.
John McCain, his nomination bid predicated on foreign policy expertise, jumped all over Obama's statement at last night's debate that he would return U.S. troops to Iraq if Al Qaeda resurges and Iraq is in chaos.
McCAIN: I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda -- it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq. And my friends, they wouldn't -- if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country -- and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender.
CROWLEY: The man who makes opposition to the war a cornerstone of his campaign is only too happy to have this argument.
OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain: And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
From the February 27 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
CROWLEY: It does not help her cause that John McCain is tuning up for a general campaign in a way that suggests he expects Obama will be his opponent. Flashing his foreign policy credentials, McCain is mocking Obama for saying, after U.S. forces are withdrawn, he would send them back if Al Qaeda resurges and Iraq was in chaos.
McCAIN: I have some news: Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Al Qaeda -- it's called Al Qaeda in Iraq. And my friends, they wouldn't -- if we left, they wouldn't be establishing a base. They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country -- and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender.
CROWLEY: Without offering a direct answer, Obama, nonetheless, is happy to have this discussion.
OBAMA: I have some news for John McCain: And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.
CROWLEY: It is a fall preview of a story not yet written.
well, Al-Quada in Iraq may revert back to Sunni and Shiite when the United states leaves Iraqi soil.
I have no idea and could careless about idealogy in this point but let's get one thing straight Al-Quada is Sunni not Shitte. Come on folks this is what we critize the present administration and McCain for -- beside being the reason we are spending US citizens lives and treasure in Iraq. We don't know the difference in our "enemies" at this point. The Iraqis are not Afghanis nor are Sunni Shittes. And Irans are culturally and genetically Persians. So please before you blow up or denounce the blowing of a foreign nation find out who lives there.
PC,
What are you doing to support the war effort? Are you voting for candidates who support the troops when they get home? You are aware of how frayed the military is, aren't you?
"...why all those Republicans changed party affiliation just to put Mrs. Clinton over the top in PA!" (PlowedCon)
I think, as important as groupthink,perceived popularity, the security of the mob, and the sheep mentality is to conservatives, they see their last chance for a while to vote for a winner.
by Dan Clore
(I prefer the transliteration "al-Qaida", but when quoting others, I
leave the transliteration as they give it.)
John McCain has repeatedly charged that Iran has provided training
and support to "al-Qaeda". He has quickly corrected this to simply
"extremists" when it has been pointed out to him that al-Qaida is a
Sunni group, whereas the Iranians are Shiite.
However, even after making this correction, McCain has allowed
another important misidentification to stand, and critics such as
Media Matter for America have also not corrected this error.
McCain and many others refer to two separate, different, distinct
groups as "al-Qaeda".
The first group is al-Qaida proper -- the group headed by Osama
bin Laden, the group that committed 9/11.
The second group is named "al-Qaida in Iraq" or "al-Qaida in
Mesopotamia" (hereafter, AQI). This group was founded in
October, 2004, as a resistane group against the occupation of
Iraq. It was headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until his death in
2006.
While the two groups are ideologically allied, and have sometimes
cooperated with each other, they remain distinct.
The much ballyhooed "contacts" between al-Qaida and the Saddam
regime consisted of meetings in which the two considered working
together, but decided against it due to their opposed ideologies.
(Al-Qaida is fundamentalist Sunni, while Saddam was a secularist,
making him an "infidel dog", as Osama bin Laden put it.)
Otherwise, while Saddam Hussein was in power, al-Qaida stayed
outside of the areas that he controlled. Records found after the
invasion show that Saddam was actively attempting to capture
al-Qaida members in order to turn them over to the Bush
administration.
Al-Qaida proper, as opposed to AQI, still barely has a presence
in Iraq.
When individuals like John McCain refer to "al-Qaeda", they do not
mean al-Qaida, but rather AQI. For example, McCain has stated that
“Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’" But contra McCain,
AQI is not al-Qaida, and while AQI is in Iraq, al-Qaida is not in Iraq.
For clarity's sake, I suggest referring to al-Qaida as al-Qaida, and referring
to al-Qaida in Iraq as AQI.
*****
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Baloney. The Iraqis are not going to roll over and allow al-Qaeda to take anything. Put it this way: we have the best army in the world. How are WE doing?
"They wouldn't be establishing a base, they'd be taking a country... "
Yes, the Iraqi insurgents would be "taking a country" - theirs.