Since Friday’s presidential debate, all three major broadcast networks have highlighted one of Barack Obama’s more commanding moments when he charged that John McCain was wrong in some of his pre-Iraq war predictions, but the media have so far ignored Obama’s incorrect assertion that "there was no Al-Qaeda" presence in Iraq before America’s invasion in 2003. Before the 2003 invasion, various news sources – some American, some from other countries – were already citing the governments of various countries as they reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the former leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, not only was already in Iraq plotting attacks to be carried out in Europe, but that he already had an association with Osama bin Laden and had spent time in Afghanistan. But during Friday’s debate, Senator Obama asserted: "Now, keep in mind that we have four times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no Al-Qaeda before we went in, but we have four times more troops there than we do in Afghanistan."
By contrast, ABC, CBS, and NBC have all played the following soundbite of Obama from the debate which is more favorable to the Illinois Democrat: "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003. And, at the time, when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy, you said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shia and Sunni. And you were wrong."
Notably, back in January 2003 and again in March 2004, the NBC Nightly News relayed claims that the Bush administration had "passed up several opportunities to take [Zarqawi] out well before the Iraq war began." The below was first posted on February 29 of this year, and lists some of the relevant reporting on Zarqawi from various sources and countries:
While it is currently conventional wisdom in the media that there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the 2003 invasion, as evidenced by the media's failure to correct Barack Obama's recent claim that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," for several years dating back before the Iraq invasion, there have been media reports of former Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's connections to Osama bin Laden, and his use of Iraq as a base to plot terror attacks against other countries before the war. In fact, four years ago, the NBC Nightly News claimed not only that there was an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq before the invasion, busy plotting attacks against Europe, but that the Bush administration intentionally "passed up several opportunities" to attack terrorist bases in Iraq "long before the war" in 2002 because of fear it would "undercut its case" for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. (Transcripts follow)
On the March 2, 2004 NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw introduced the report: "[Abu Musab al-Zarqawi] is widely believed to have ties to Al-Qaeda, and the Bush administration apparently passed up several opportunities to take him out well before the Iraq war began."
And on the January 27, 2003 NBC Nightly News, after revelations of a plot to attack targets in Europe with the poison ricin, which was believed to have been hatched by Zarqawi in Iraq, correspondent Jim Miklaszewski reported that "U.S. Special Forces had plans to launch a covert raid against the Kirmadara complex [in northern Iraq], but Pentagon officials say it was called off because the Bush administration feared it would interfere with upcoming UN weapon inspections."
Although some have tried to argue that Zarqawi did not declare allegiance to bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization until after the Iraq invasion, as far back as April 4 and May 16, 2001, AP's Jamal Halaby reported that Jordanian authorities suspected Zarqawi, also known as Ahmad Fadeel Al-Khalayleh, of plotting attacks in Jordan, and relayed that Zarqawi was "believed to be in Afghanistan."
On November 9, 2002, a London Times article by Roger Boyes and Daniel McGrory, citing Hans-Josef Beth of the German secret service BND, claimed that Zarqawi "used London as his base until Osama bin Laden ordered him to move to Afghanistan in 2000 to run one of al-Qaeda's training camps."
On December 18, 2002, after the arrests of several terror suspects in France amid fears of a chemical weapon attack, Sebastian Rotella of the Los Angeles Times reported that "A top Al Qaeda suspect said to be commanding a campaign targeting Europe is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian reputedly knowledgeable about chemical warfare, according to German and Italian intelligence officials."
On December 19, 2002, Knight Ridder's Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson reported, citing Jordanian Prime Minister Ali Abu al Ragheb, that Zarqawi was behind the murder of American diplomat Lawrence Foley, and was believed to be "an ally of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden." Ragheb further contended that Zarqawi "was probably in northern Iraq working with Ansar al-Islam, a Kurdish Muslim extremist group." Jordanian officials were also cited as claiming that the men suspected of carrying out Foley's murder met Zarqawi "in Al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan."
Months before the Iraq invasion, on January 7, 2003, after revelations of a ricin terror plot targeting London was uncovered, NBC's Miklaszewski contended that U.S. officials "report that Islamic extremists tied to al-Qaeda had produced ricin in a terrorist lab at Kirma in the Kurdish-controlled area of northern Iraq."
On the February 9, 2004, World News Tonight on ABC, correspondent Brian Ross relayed reports that Zarqawi "fled the U.S. bombing of Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and moved on to Iran and then into Iraq," and, referring to the same ricin terror plot, further contended that "intelligence officials in Britain and France say Zarqawi also had a hand in a thwarted plan to use the chemical poison ricin, produced by his followers in northern Iraq."
On the April 26, 2004 Nightline, in light of the revelation of a bomb plot targeting Amman, Jordan, ABC's Chris Bury described Zarqawi as "a long-time associate of Osama bin Laden," and correspondent Michel Martin contended that Zarqawi "ran a camp for Jordanian recruits in Afghanistan."
On the September 26, 2004 edition of CBS's 60 Minutes, Ben Bradley, citing Jordanian terror expert Oraib al-Rantawi, contended that, following his release from a Jordanian prison in 1999, Zarqawi left the country and "went to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he trained with al-Qaeda and then set up his own training camp."
And on the May 1, 2007 The O'Reilly Factor on FNC, a clip of which was replayed on the February 28, 2008 show, former CIA director George Tenet argued that after Zarqawi left Afghanistan, "he shows up in Baghdad in May of 2002" and "creates a safe haven for Al-Qaeda" in northern Iraq with the terror group Ansar al-Islam.
All three of the February 27, 2008 broadcast evening newscasts reported on the exchange between John McCain and Barack Obama over Al-Qaeda's presence in Iraq, as McCain picked up on Obama's missatement from Tuesday's debate that seemed to assume Al-Qaeda was not currently in Iraq. McCain: "I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called 'Al-Qaeda in Iraq.'"
Each show then played a clip of Obama claiming that "there was no such thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq," but did not clarify that, while eventual Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Zarqawi had not yet publicly coined that name for his terror group before the invasion, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Zarqawi not only was already in Iraq using it as a base of operations, but was already associated with bin Laden.
Below are transcripts of relevant portions of the Wednesday February 27, 2008 CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, followed by the relevant March 2, 2004 story by Jim Miklaszewski from the NBC Nightly News:
From the February 27 CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC: And a line, by the way, from the debate had John McCain and Barack Obama trading barbs today. Last night, Obama repeated his pledge to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, but said he'd send them back, quote, "if Al-Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq." Today, McCain jumped on that, and Obama answered right back.
JOHN MCCAIN: You know, I have news for Senator Obama. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. And that's why we're fighting in Iraq, and that's why we're succeeding in Iraq.
BARACK 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 NBC Nightly News:
ANDREA MITCHELL: But the debate also had its pitfalls for Obama, answering a hypothetical question about whether he would send U.S. troops back into Iraq if Al-Qaeda re-emerged after a U.S. withdrawal.
OBAMA: 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.
MITCHELL: John McCain pounced on that today.
JOHN McCAIN: I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."
MITCHELL: And in a preview of what might be the fall match-up, Obama immediately responded.
OBAMA: But 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.
MITCHELL: So did anyone win the debate?
HOWARD FINEMAN, Newsweek: Politically, it was a draw. And the draw goes to the champ. And at this point, ironically, the champ, the person wearing the belt and wearing the crown is Obama.
From the February 27 World News Tonight on ABC:
DAVID WRIGHT: Today in Columbus, Obama was brimming with confidence.
BARACK OBAMA: We had a terrific debate last night in Cleveland.
WRIGHT: But one of his debate answers drew fire today from the likely Republican nominee. The question was hypothetical. After President Obama withdraws all U.S. troops from Iraq, if Al-Qaeda resurges there, would he re-invade?
OBAMA: 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.
WRIGHT: Today McCain mocked Obama's answer.
JOHN MCCAIN: I have some news. Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. It's called "Al-Qaeda in Iraq."
OBAMA: Well, first of all, I do know that Al-Qaeda is in Iraq-
WRIGHT: Obama didn't hesitate to fire back.
OBAMA: -but 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.
WRIGHT: A preview, perhaps, of the contest to come. But first, Obama has to get past Ohio and Texas.
From the March 2, 2004 NBC Nightly News:
TOM BROKAW: The spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, the Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, was among those blaming the United States for the attacks, saying American forces have not done enough to secure the borders. But the real suspect in the attacks is a well-known terrorist: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is widely believed to have ties to al-Qaeda, and the Bush administration apparently passed up several opportunities to take him out well before the Iraq war began. More on all of this tonight from NBC's Jim Miklaszewski, who's at the Pentagon.
JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: With today's attacks, al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaeda, is blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq. But NBC News has learned that long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist group, Ansar al-Islam, perhaps kill Zarqawi himself, but never pulled the trigger. June 2002, U.S. government officials say intelligence revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaeda had set up a weapons lab at Kirma in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide. The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp and sent them to the White House, where, say government sources, the plans were debated to death.
MICHAEL O'HANLON, Brookings Institution: Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties or risk casualties after 9/11, and we still didn't do it.
MIKLASZEWSKI: Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then, the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
ROGER CRESSEY, NBC Terrorism Analyst: People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the President's policy on preemption against terrorists.
MIKLASZEWSKI: January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq. The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and, for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight. But the administration feared that destroying the terrorist camp inside Iraq could undercut its case for going to war against Saddam. The U.S. did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late. Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone.
CRESSEY: Here's a case where they waited. They waited too long, and now we're suffering as a result inside Iraq.
MIKLASZEWSKI: And despite the Bush administration's tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi's killing streak continues today. Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News, the Pentagon.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
That's the media's line
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 15:49 ET by 10ksnookerWhy would they correct it? I am surprised they didn't blank the screen when Mccian talked about we are winning in Iraq.
10k... Well, you know
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 15:59 ET by bigtimer10k...
Well, you know they would of it they could of...or at the very least have the camera be jittering (sp) whenever McCain spoke.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Roomless
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:06 ET by wdhorningNo, they did not blank the sound, but they all went running out of the room.
Obama is a terrorist best friend?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:17 ET by wdhorningTo me, saying al Qaeda was not in Iraq in 2003, at the start of the war, is like saying "God damn America." It also proves this man unworthy to be Commander-in-Chief, because he failed to understand the real situation.
Not only that, besides WMD and al Qaeda, 19 other reasons for war were listed in the Oct 2002, Joint War Resolution. In fact, several of the reasons were related to Saddam's violation of the truce after the Gulf War in 1991, which in reality would have authorized the USA and its allies to continue the 1991 Gulf War without another Resolution.
Saddam had to go according to Pres Clinton because if Saddam's support of al Qaeda.
Obama needs to get a life.
No AQ in Iraq before 2003?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 23:57 ET by bpjamApparently, Iraq was the only place on Planet Earth where Al Qaeda was NOT by 2003. They were in the US, in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Kenya, Egypt, Indonesia, China, New Jersey, Tucson, Las Vegas, Houston, Michigan, Chicago, NYC, Florida, etc, etc, etc.
But NO Al Qaeda in Iraq. Oh no, they would NEVER be caught in that God-forsaken place. Not with the likes of Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and other of the worlds top terrorists already being provided safe haven by Saddam.
And Obamas intelligence on this is solid. Just like his intelligence telling him that Rezko was honest and Jeremiah Wright loved America.
Need links
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:15 ET by AlexaShruggedNeed links to these articles on AQI to be effective in disseminating this information
http://www.AlexaShrugged.com
What is AQI?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:18 ET by wdhorningWhat is AQI?
Al Queda in Iraq.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:27 ET by BDAl Queda in Iraq.
here's a few - use google,etc, to find your own.
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:43 ET by wdhorninghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE1DD103DF93BA1575AC0A...
Plus there is this, many MSM outlets in one breath claim al Qaida was never in Iraq and in the next breath claim the Bush administration failed to admit how many al Qaida were really in Iraq. The first argument is used to claim one of the reasons for war was a lie, buth the opposite argument is used to claim Bush did not do enough to stop al Qaida in Iraq.
Old Lies repeated, hoping to become Half Truths via MSM
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:19 ET by JayTeeThis is a vain Effort to prop up BHO as a winning Debater . . .
Lies and Video Tape, where is the sex ?
The Republican Revolution will not be Televised
Um, Bill Clinton?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:36 ET by BlondeDavid Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Nearly off thread but ...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:27 ET by wdhorningHenry Kissinger was just interviewed live on Fox News minutes ago and he said "no president should sit down with the Iranian president without preconditions, preset by working level diplomats." (paraphrase)
However, Obama lied and said Kissinger told McCain he should just sit down with the president of Iran without preconditions.
Obama, the liar, had a fire, now it been quenched.
He sucks at prose, see his big nose, now he's been benched.
Once again the assertion of
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:38 ET by BDOnce again the assertion of "No Al Queda in Iraq prior to US invasion" by a leftist (Obama) is not only incorrect, but misses the strategic point entirely.
It assumes the current Global War on Terror follows a law enforcement model, it does not. It is in fact a WAR.
Similarly, one could say that there were no Germans in French Morrocco when FDR ordered Torch in 1943. NOr were there Germans in Tunesia prior to US forces moving to that border from French Morocco. In fact, the Germans moved in to Tunesia from Sicily shortly before US forces invaded there. So, FDR was not justified in Torch?
The key to this issue is that the center of gravity in my opinion of our enemy is his ability to communicate his islamo fascist ideology in an environment free of competition. THis communication uses all forces of media and interpersonal methods.
In order to combat it, you must have a foothold in the region in which this message is being transmitted (Middle east/Southasia etc) and a competing message (Democracy and freedom.)
I think that if someone were to try and do something similar in the US, would they try to communicate their message from Glaciar National Park with its mountainous region and caves? Or rather New York City?
As much as I think it obnoxious, New York City would get my vote.
I think the Afghanis are truly wonderful people, but they are not the key terrain in shaping the "message" of freedom and democracy. Hell, a Nuke could go off there and no one would no of it for weeks if we did not tell them....
Awaiting J Frank et al to tell me where I am wrong.
Obama, friend of terrorists?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:45 ET by wdhorningAnd I believe the MSM is helping to propagate our enemy's lies using Obama as its mouthpiece.
wdh.... I agree with you
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:43 ET by bigtimerwdh....
I agree with you and BD...here is a short Youtube video of a what we are talking about when it comes to Obama being a mouth piece for our ememies
Hat-Tip to acumen
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Isn't he just special?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:54 ET by JWFThe armistice which Saddam Hussein agreed to, required him to demolish all weapons of mass destruction along with their programs. He did not do that.
The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq signed by a majority of the United States Congress on October 2 of 2002 listed 23 points of which only 1 pertained to WMD's.
Hello Obama? WAKE UP. the war was quick and easy. Remember that whole banner thing on that floaty ship thing with whatshisname the President. Mission Accomplished. Yes we were initially greeted as liberators. Sorry the occupation and pacification has taken so long but then the average is 9 to 11 years.
Hello Obama? We found lots of WMD's if anyone would have bothered to report them. Weekly Standard has a whole list. ASK!
Hello Obama? There was not that much violence between Sunni and Shia or at least there would not have been had Al Qaeda not been so busy BLOWING THINGS UP!
What is this about you not being ready to lead? You are not even ready to READ like the rest of us have been doing for 5 years!
I'll play the part of the average MSM type
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:58 ET by Jnoble(while covering ears and shutting eyes)
"No war for oil! Bush lied! People died!"
getting a little tired of the "No WMD's" lie...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:17 ET by bloolooThe DOD has satellite images of semi trucks hauling stuff across the border into Syria by the dozens leading up to the war. Some of it is available by the FOIA and some is still pretty secret. BUT, how about these?? MIG jets buried in the desert. I don't know the official count but it was reported to be a couple dozen at one point. Snopes says 30 to 40... I would think a dozen or two multi-million dollar jets buried in the sand might count as WMD's!
Great post bloo... I tire
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:37 ET by bigtimerGreat post bloo...
I tire of arguing this with people.
I could not agree more, we had the pictures and words of others about the Russian caravan, let alone the book by George Dada(?sp) who helped fly what he said were WMDs as far as he knew into Syria by orders of his boss Sadam, the truth is out there if anybody wants to know...let us not forget the Bacaw Valley (sp)either.
Of course if this doesn't fit one's agenda then we have the same old same old...
President Bush and administration saying nothing about his is for reasons I don't agree with because of Russia/Iran but we don't know everything of course, there may be other reasons, the truth will be out there later, like all history eventually is...
Unfortunately we have the msm, and other leftist that seems to be the beholders of the truth...according to THEM!
Nothing like rewriting to suit them.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
General
Mon, 09/29/2008 - 11:06 ET by pbanks7Georges Sada, Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein, with the tagline "An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMDs and control the Arab world."
Good book.
MSM - shaping all the perceptions you need to believe, then confirming it with a poll.
The ways libs have to twist themselves into a pretzel
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 16:55 ET by Jnoble..about this is funny. It's almost like an Abbott and Costello routine. Lets see... Al-Qaeda caused 9-11. Al-Qaeda must be destroyed. Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when he invaded (according to them). But now they are. And we can kill them by the thousands. But we shouldn't be in Iraq...because Al-Qaeda wasn't there first....but now they are because we are. So we should leave because we shouldn't be there in the first place and our troops are being attacked and killed by Al-Qaeda who, by the way, started 9-11. So we shouldn't fight them and we should be pulling out because we shouldn't be there in the first place but we still need to focus an Al-Qaeda. Who are in Afganistan and Iraq. So we should leave Iraq totally and go to Afganistan to fight Al-Qaeda even though we were just facing them one country away in Iraq.....
Anyone confused yet? And I'm not really exaggerating
:-)
It doesn't matter
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:05 ET by ricklailObama is the messiah, the chosen one ordained by the MSM. It doesn't matter to them that he can't get his facts straight. His campaign is making threats in Missouri about false ads against him. The media is not questioning his false ads. How much more of this can go on over the next 39 days?
tIf pro is the opposite of con what is the opposite of progress? Congress!
Iran
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:12 ET by TheAssessorI've always liked the visual in my mind of Americans *in force* in Iraq and Afghanistan with Iran smack in the middle, kinda like 'got-cher nose!'. Must make them crazy.
"I've got a bracelet too", Barak Obama, political sociopath..
To clarify...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:40 ET byAbu Musab al-Zarqawi was the leader of al-Tawhid wal-Jihad before the invasion. The group was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. After the invasion he changed the name of the group to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq". Are you saying "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" existed before the invasion? A little bit of a stretch since Zarqawi changed the name of his group after the invasion- Oct 2004 to be clear. There's no proof of the group existing as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" before the invasion, unless you're trying to say Zarqawi was the embodiment of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" without having to actually declare it. If you do have proof, please share it with us. Your own statement undercuts what you are trying to say...
Each show then played a clip of Obama claiming that "there was no such
thing as Al-Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to
invade Iraq," but did not clarify that, while eventual Al-Qaeda in Iraq
leader Zarqawi had not yet publicly coined that name for his terror
group before the invasion, there has been plenty of reason to believe
that Zarqawi not only was already in Iraq using it as a base of
operations, but was already associated with bin Laden Obama was correct in his statement.
"plenty of reason to believe"?!?
Which can also be "plenty of reason not to believe."
Anyways...McCain won the debate...he barely won the debate.
Ubercon
Uber-One of the things that
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 08:42 ET by BDUber-
One of the things that happened after 9/11 was the "Franchisment of Al Queda."
In the post 9/11 period, especially after the US Invasion of Afghanistan and definately by Christmas Al Queda as a mainline organization had virtually disappeared. THe Main line units that supported the Taliban forces (easily identified as the arabs in Afghanistan PW holding pens) had pretty much been destroyed by a handful of SF ODA.
THose who followed the call to Islamo-Fascism were thus forced to join "Franchise elements" of Al Queda such as AQI.
Does Osama control them? I doubt Osama KNOWS about them....
That is why it is not a law enforcement exercise to defeat islamo fascism, but rather destruction of the Islamo-Fascist message is the mission and our tool is democracy...
"Franchisment of Al Queda."... you meant enfranchisement.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 09:03 ET byBD,
I agree with you and I thought I made this clear in my comment. Zarqawi's declaration of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" did not occur until after the invasion of Iraq. To say fragments of Al-Qaeda sympathizers existed in Iraq before the invasion would be accurate. It is not accurate to portray Al-Qaeda being in Iraq as a formed group ready to fight before the invasion. Zarqawi led his group under a different title and sympathized with Bin Laden's movement. It was not until Oct 2004 when Zarqawi changed the name of his group to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and pledged his full support. So, as for accuracy, Obama is accurate in his statement to claim the group,"Al-Qaeda in Iraq", did not exist before the invasion and there was absoluetly no connection to Saddam's regime. You could say Zarqawi, trained by Al-Qaeda, and his group of Al-Qaeda sympathizers existed before the invasion. I'm okay with that statement since it's accurate.
Ubercon
Some small
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 10:36 ET by BDSome small corrections:
The term "Enfranchisement" does not quite fit and I use the term "Al Queda Franchised" to describe the situation. Some small difference in that Enfranchisement show a potential leadership by a franchise leader (MacDonalds corporate HQ comes to mind) which is not exactly what happened.
It would be as if the MacDonalds Corporate HQ had to flee to the Montana/Alberta border mountains and lose all contact with any of teir folks. Instead, anyone who wanted to come to the US and sell Hamburgers, Fallafel, or even cell phones under the MacDonalds logo would be free to take the field. THus the term "Franchisement." Not exactly grammatical, but hey...
Obamas position that a formed group in Iraq called AQI not standing at the time of the invasion is meaningless and only holds value in the law enforcement paradigm of the GWOT rather than the full spectrum warfare paradigm.
Iraq, by our presence became what my friends call a "Jihadi Magnet" or a "sticky trap". It had ease of access to anyone seeking to become a Jihadi in the rest of the Islamic world and they died in droves. So much so that they decided to stop going there and are now trudging the extra distance to Pakistan where they have sanctuary in the Fed Admin Tribal Areas.
One of the unusual benefits of AQI actions in Iraq was their utter brutality and unconcern for the locals. Not hard to do when you are convinced that by blowing up yourself and the locals you will imediately ascend to some form of heaven. Not so tough on YOU as the suicide bomber because you are seeking devine intervention, but really tough on your recruiting effort amongst the locals.
Now, this unconcern has other countries population effectively saying "uh-uh, ya aint coming here...." Except for those who are the true believers (Iran comes to mind.)
No, it means he's correct in his statement.
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:45 ET byBD,
Obamas position that a formed group in Iraq called AQI not standing at the time of the invasion is meaningless...
???????
Meaningless???
This is the center piece of whether or not he has stated a fact. He stated a fact, for all intents and purposes, is correct and true.
I'll rest my case and move on...
Ubercon
His broader position (War as
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 13:13 ET by BDHis broader position (War as a law enforcement operation) renders this question moot.
Al-Qaeda/Semantics
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 17:24 ET by Brad WilmouthIt may be "technically" accurate to say that the "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" group did not exist before 2003 in the form that it did afterwards, but simply stating that "there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq" before the invasion still gives a false impression that there was no Al-Qaeda presence at all before 2003, which appears not to be the case based on the sources I cited. And I do think Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before 2003, as a graduate of Osama bin Laden's training camps, possibly running a terrorist group by whatever name that was reportedly plotting terror attacks in places like Jordan and European countries, is too important to give the public the impression that it didn't happen.
If wording can give a false impression, I think that's an important issue. In 1996 and 2000, if I remember correctly, Clinton and Gore made these campaign promises something along the lines that they would push for a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition. But many people don't really understand the tax code enough to realize that may only amount to a few hundred dollars in tax cut per year difference because there was already a tax deduction of about $8,000, or whatever the numbers were. It was technically a true statement to say "$10,000 tax deduction," but some people were still fooled by it. An accurate statement can still deceive and may require elaboration to avoid giving people the wrong impression.
Let's See If I Got This Right...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:42 ET by Bill W.So, prior to 9/11 there were Al Qaida in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Spain, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Somalia, Italy, England, Florida, Arizona, California, Indonesia, Philippines, Michigan, New Jersey....BUT there were no Al Qaida in Iraq?
What a line of reasoning!
It seems they are everywhere...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:48 ET byBill,
"Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is the name of the group lead by Zarqawi. Al-Qaeda in (location) is not a declared group. This English language is so confusing to so many...if only they could teach it correctly. Semantics, schamantics...
Ubercon
Thanks for the Correction, But...
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:55 ET by Bill W.My point is that these folks are/were everywhere. To say they weren't in Iraq prior to 9/11 is ludicrous.
Whether or not they were actively consorting with Sadam and he helped plan the attacks and all of that...different matters.
Bill
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 18:45 ET by bigtimerBill W...
Exactly...Between 62-66 different areas/countries that we know of BEFORE Clinton left office...just because they used different names for the same group/cause their outcome for the US is the same...it didn't nor doesn't take rocket-science to know they are all affiliated.
Plus let us do not forget the groups within this country...let alone the cells we did break up.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Whose Responsibility?
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 17:55 ET by CaringwhiteguySo whose responsibility is it to correct this mis-dis-information. Yes, McCain has done so in the past, but I didn't hear him do so last night. You weren't expecting Jim Lehrer or Chris Matthews to step up to the plate and bitch slap their bobo . . . were you?
If our guy was too flustered or too detached to handle the exchange then he bears the responsibility.
This was one more reason
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 18:25 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThis was one more reason why I gave Obama an F!!! To me, if you lie, you lose. Democrats have always lied and that is why I will never vote Democrat. Whats worse, Democrats never ever back up their lies with proof. They always lie, yet never prove it. Our side proves it over and over and they still get away with calling it lies and all because of the complicit MSM.
I seriously hate these people.
____________________________________________________
"A society that puts equality...ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom." ~ Milton Friedman
Who really cares? Al Qaeda
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:29 ET by ckc1227Who really cares? Al Qaeda in Iraq was never a reason for going there in the first place. They're there now, apparently because they believe it's a key battleground in their war on the U.S. Surely they didn't go there to die just for the hell of it, or because it sounded like a fun thing to do. I mean, if Aghanistan is the REAL battlefield in the War on Terror, why did Al Qaeda go to Iraq to fight instead of staying in or going to Afghanistan? I guess, according toObama, we should refrain from going to war with anyone because Al Qaeda might go there to fight us.
Dems keep telling us Iraq is a distraction, but I thought, according to Obama and the left, a president is supposed to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. I guess that only applies when democrats think it should.
ckc... Yep, Iraq is the
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:36 ET by bigtimerckc...
Yep, Iraq is the heart strategically.
Only reason I respond to why I care is because I get sick of the lies the msm tell constantly...with the mouths that are so ungrateful to the very people that have given them the right/freedom to keep yapping with their leftist crap in the long run of it all....they detest the ones that keep them free.
Oh well, it is what it is.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bigtimer: I agree, AQ was
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 08:49 ET by BDBigtimer:
I agree, AQ was forced to try and intervene in Iraq becuase they feared what the US influence in the heart of the Islamic world could do if we were allowed unmolested access to future allies there.
AQ has seen the history books and realizes that US forces change places when they are there long enough - for the better. Germany/Japan/SOuth Korea/Italy etc are just a quick travelogue of US success in improvement of the world.
And that cannot be withstood by the Islamo Fascists as it is a hammer blow directly to their heart.
see www.regimeofterror.com for baath and al qaeda admitting link
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:24 ET by regimeofterrorI've got a whole site on this topic, www.regimeofterror.com. Saddam's goons, hundreds of them, and al Qaeda have both admitted in print and on video that they cooperated pre invasion. I am convinced that this is an absolute tragedy that this information hasn't gotten out. I literally have a few hundred more articles on this topic that I haven't gotten up yet and would love the help if anyone wants to shoot me an email in my contact box on my site.
Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...
http://www.regimeofterror.com
Hey
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:45 ET by bigtimerHey regimeofterror...
That is a keeper...what a trove of info you have there...you are bookmarked for me.
Thank you so much for this info.
I, too, have been so frustrated about the silence on all of this over time, I tried to understand it at first, but as time has gone on I have become far more frustrated.
Wished I had so much more time in a day to go everywhere I would love to on the internet...
...anyway, thank you...bet I will be using some of your info in the future.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Awesome site!
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 19:53 ET by GregEAwesome site!
War Objective
Sat, 09/27/2008 - 23:31 ET by BlueCat57War Objective: Regime change in Iraq.
Start date March 2003, end date April 2003.
War over. Any questions? When did the war in Germany end? When did the war in Japan end? The war in Iraq ended in April 2003. Since when does the Media get to write the definitions of words? Unfortunately too many people are too ignorant to know what the word war means, so the Media gets away with it.
terrorism is terrorism
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 12:27 ET by tonemeisterabu abbas was captured in bagdad in 2003 by U.S. forces.and subsequently died in captivity.can't say i feel the least bit sorry.why?, i'll tell you. a group of palestinian terrorists took over the cruise ship achille lauro and murdered an american citizen named leon klinghofer.did he try to escape or interfere with the hi-jacking? unlikely,as he was an elderly man and IN A WHEELCHAIR.mr.klinghofer and his wheelchair were thrown overboard and later recovered. build a kill pit in afganistan and iraq and let them come...i'd rather deal with them there ,with trained troops, body armor, tanks etc. than at the local mall with them wearing suicide vests packed w/ball bearings and c-4 at christmas here.
We can be thankful
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 14:19 ET by pbthinkerThere's an old saying, "Facts are stubborn things." Apparently, when it comes to the cheerleading media, that's only a plus if they remember them.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
April 2008
Sun, 09/28/2008 - 14:20 ET by JDWLooking back through my notes... Obama: "Al Qaeda is not in Ir --"
You Tube
JDW
DAILY WAVE
'Hey Chuck, Stand Up!'