Bush Defies Intel Agents, Labels Al-Qaeda "The Main Enemy" In Iraq

[Gold9472]

Bush defies intel agents, labels al-Qaida 'the main enemy' in Iraq

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0629bush-iraq0629.html

(Gold9472: Have insurgents morphed (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15849) into "Al-Qaeda?" If 9/11 wasn't orchestrated, fascilitated or allowed by this Administration, considering how they have used it as if it was, I would be friggin' astonished.)

McClatchy Newspapers
Jun. 29, 2007 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - 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.

"Al-Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike," Bush asserted.

"Al-Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

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.

[beltman713]

Dumb ass. Al-Qaida makes up like, 4%-6%, of the people we're fighting in Iraq.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Maher quoted a General of saying AQ was no more than 500 in Iraq.

[simuvac]

Notice the language, though. Bush is not saying Al Qaeda is the most numerous enemy in Iraq, just that it is the "main" enemy. That could mean anything.

And the only thing he accuses Al Qaeda of is "sensational" killings. Not "the most" killings. Just the "most sensational" killings.

Gonzalez did the same thing with the wiretaps:

“We have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of Al-Qaeda, affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or working in support of Al-Qaeda,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said of the program in 2005.

Working in support of Al Qaeda could mean almost anything. So could affiliated. They could say affiliation is ideological, not organizational, and that could mean anyone in the world opposed to US global hegemony.

These guys are giving the impression that (1) Al Qaeda is everywhere, and (2) their response to Al Qaeda is legitimate; but of course neither is true. They are not quite lying, but they are. It's the same shit they pulled with WMDs (or was it, the-intent-to-someday-speak-to-someone-who-once-heard-of-a-guy-who-knew-a-guy-who-had-the -intent-to-acquire-WMDs?).

[Gold9472]

Notice the language, though. Bush is not saying Al Qaeda is the most numerous enemy in Iraq, just that it is the "main" enemy. That could mean anything.

And the only thing he accuses Al Qaeda of is "sensational" killings. Not "the most" killings. Just the "most sensational" killings.

Gonzalez did the same thing with the wiretaps:

“We have to have a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of Al-Qaeda, affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or working in support of Al-Qaeda,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said of the program in 2005.

Working in support of Al Qaeda could mean almost anything. So could affiliated. They could say affiliation is ideological, not organizational, and that could mean anyone in the world opposed to US global hegemony.

These guys are giving the impression that (1) Al Qaeda is everywhere, and (2) their response to Al Qaeda is legitimate; but of course neither is true. They are not quite lying, but they are. It's the same shit they pulled with WMDs (or was it, the-intent-to-someday-speak-to-someone-who-once-heard-of-a-guy-who-knew-a-guy-who-had-the -intent-to-acquire-WMDs?).

I wrote this on Michael Wolsey's site, and blogger...

This makes me think of things like, “Is what we’re being told about Al-Qaeda inflated (showthread.php?t=14610)?” or “Was E&P right when they said that the U.S. Military is morphing (showthread.php?t=15849) the insurgents in Iraq into Al-Qaeda?” Why would there be a need to do such things? Isn’t the threat real? Doesn’t Al-Qaeda have the tentacles we’ve been told?