Here we go again.
Peter S. Canellos writes in the Boston Globe today the always useful talking point from the left that Bush said Iraq was behind 9/11….or alluded to it. He did neither. In fact he has refuted that point over and over and over again but the MSM continues on with their bulls&^t:
WASHINGTON — In defending the Iraq war, leading Republican presidential contenders are increasingly echoing words and phrases used by President Bush in the run-up to the war that reinforce the misleading impression that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Then this writer makes dishonest assumption based on the debate:
In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Senator John McCain of Arizona suggested that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden would "follow us home" from Iraq — a comment some viewers may have taken to mean that bin Laden was in Iraq, which he is not.
Former New York mayor Rudolph Guiliani asserted, in response to a question about Iraq, that "these people want to follow us here and they have followed us here. Fort Dix happened a week ago. "
Please Peter, everyone knows that the war against al-Qaeda is in Iraq right now. al-Qaeda is there, we are there. It’s obvious to all except the worst partisan hack….cough Peter Canellos cough…that these Republican nominees were saying that AQ is in Iraq and they will follow us to our shores, as they have done before, unless we defeat them there.
No too hard to figure that one out.
However, none of the six people arrested for allegedly plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey were from Iraq.
No, but their ideology, specifically radical Islam, is the same as al-Qaeda’s. The war is called the War on Terror for a reason.
Spokespeople for McCain and Romney say the candidates were expressing their deep-seated convictions that terrorists would benefit if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq. The spokesmen say that even if Iraq had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists have infiltrated Iraq as security has deteriorated since the invasion, and now pose a direct threat to the United States.
But critics, including some former CIA officials, said those statements could mislead voters into believing that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks are now fighting the United States in Iraq .
Former CIA officials? ViPers and Michael Scheuer…..completely unpartisan officials right?
I know…just joking.
Michael Scheuer , the CIA’s former chief of operations against bin Laden in the late 1990s, said the comments of some GOP candidates seem to suggest that bin Laden is controlling the insurgency in Iraq, which he is not.
"There are at least 41 groups [worldwide] that have announced their allegiance to Osama bin Laden — and I will bet that none of them are directed by Osama bin Laden," Scheuer said, pointing out that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not overseen by bin Laden.
Nonetheless, many GOP candidates have recently echoed Bush’s longstanding assertion that Iraq is the "central battlefront" in the worldwide war against Al Qaeda and have declared that Al Qaeda would make Iraq its base of operations if the United States withdraws — notions that Scheuer said do not withstand scrutiny.
"The idea that Al Qaeda will move its headquarters of operation from South Asia to Iraq is nonsense," said Scheuer.
Please…..whether their headquarters is in Malaysia, Pakistan, or Iraq changes nothing. They are in Iraq, it IS the central battlefront against al-Qaeda, and that is a good thing because we are fighting them OVER THERE.
Oh, one other thing, Bush never said their headquarters is in Iraq, I mean come on.
Bush, for instance, repeatedly spoke of Hussein’s support for terrorism — which many Americans apparently took to mean that Hussein supported Al Qaeda in its jihad against the United States. The administration, however, sourced that claim to Hussein’s backing of Palestinian terrorist groups targeting Israel.
Yes, he supported Palestinian terrorist groups AND al-Qaeda. Go here to see Flopping Aces many posts on the subject with tons of evidence.
No point has been emphasized more strongly at GOP debates than the link between the Iraq war and Al Qaeda. During the debates about war funding, GOP leaders have downplayed the role of sectarian violence in Iraq and emphasized the role of Al Qaeda.
On Friday, McCain called any attempt to cut Iraq war funding, "the equivalent of waving a white flag to Al Qaeda."
But specialists say that the enemy the military calls "Al Qaeda Iraq" is a combination of Iraqi jihadists and an unknown number of fighters from countries throughout the Middle East. "AQI" came together after the US invasion. And while there is evidence that AQI members coordinate attacks among themselves, there is little evidence that they coordinate closely with bin Laden.
So there is evidence that AQ coordinate attacks but since bin Laden didn’t specifically order the attacks the whole debate is moot?
WTF is this writer smoking?
Who cares if bin Laden ordered the attacks or not. The fact is that AQ is in Iraq. They are attacking our troops. If we cut and run from Iraq then they follow us home. Not to hard to figure out huh? But this writer won’t stop with this inane argument as you can see by the next few paragraphs.
In pressing his case for continued war funding, Bush last week said a previously classified intelligence report indicated that bin Laden had sent a messenger in early 2005 to urge the late Iraqi terrorist chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to aim more attacks at the United States.
But there is no further evidence that bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, exerts control over Al Qaeda Iraq, according to a senior military official in Baghdad in an interview last week.
"We don’t have any direct information that would link Al Qaeda Iraq to getting e-mails, memos, whatever, from bin Laden," the military official said, speaking under condition of anonymity.
Sigh….
This is a great example of a pure propaganda piece by our MSM. Pure BS from beginning to end. But the sad thing is that for the uninformed who still get their news from the MSM this will come off as great analysis.
UPDATE
Scott Malensek adds:
Mr. Canellos,
With respect, I have to let you know that I disagree with your article. Look, I could easily get into one of those debates that I know you and I have probably had a million times with other people regarding this piece of intel vs. that piece, this fmr CIA guy vs. that fmr CIA guy, and so forth. I can happily give you at any time a near infinite number of examples of ties between Saddam’s regime and Al Queda, but my problem with your article is not the anonymous military source who is grossly uninformed, it’s not that your source is anonymous, and it’s not that you went to Mike Scheuer (the guy who failed to catch Bin Laden for the 4 yrs the 911 plot was in motion).
No, my problem is the half truth that only GOP candidates mention Iraq and 911 in the same sentence. Surely you’re familiar with the innumerable positions and/or caveat-laden positions that Democratic Party leaders have had on Iraq, and surely you’re familiar with Sen Clinton, Sen Kerry, Sen Rockefeller, Sen Levin, and others who have said the exact same thing just this year. If so, I wonder…why single out Republicans instead of the issue itself? Why not say, “Members of Congress embrace 911 and Iraq,” and then list the nearly identical quotes from Sen Clinton, Sen Kerry, and Sen McCain, Gov Romney, etc.? It would appear that in focusing on only half of those who make the claim, your article’s concern isn’t the claim, but the half you talk about; the Republicans. If that’s so, why not just step up and go all the way, replace your article with a “Clinton for President” ad?
Oh, and by the way, in case you didn’t get a chance to read it (I understand it’s hard for a newsman to keep up with the news), the Senate Intelligence Committee released another part of their Phase II report that shows the Bush Admin claims about AQ ties were hardly based on fiction, lies, or Feith’s OSP. Friday trash dump, and you missed it.
See author page