Suddenly, Bush cares about al Qaeda again

In his speech yesterday to the Associated General Contractors of America, the president seemed almost desperate to generate support for the war in Iraq. But with no coherent talking points left to defend the U.S. presence in Iraq, Bush played the only card he had left.

Over the course of the hour-long event, the president referred to al Qaeda, by name, 27 times. If you include more oblique references (the “network that attacked America on 9/11”), the number climbs to 31. Given al Qaeda’s actual role in Iraq, that’s probably about 29 too many.

But as Dana Milbank noted, facts don’t necessarily matter here: “It’s time to play the Qaeda card.”

Never mind all that talk about sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq. “The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al-Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks,” Bush disclosed.

The man who four years ago admitted “no evidence” of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks now finds solid evidence of a role in Iraq by the Sept. 11 hijackers.

“I don’t need to remind you who al-Qaeda is,” Bush reminded. “Al-Qaeda is the group that plot and planned and trained killers to come and kill people on our soil. The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens.”

This new line of argument would seem to present some difficulty for the White House, and not only because, as the Pentagon inspector general reported last month, al-Qaeda had no ties to Iraq before the U.S. invasion in 2003. More to the point: If the problem in Iraq isn’t sectarian strife, then why is the U.S. military building walls to separate Sunni enclaves from Shiite neighborhoods?

Mr. Milbank is clearly guilty of pre-9/11 thinking.

There’s no great mystery here. If Americans look at the violence in Iraq as a symptom of a Sunni-Shia civil war, they want to withdraw. If Americans look at Iraq as a theater for fighting al Qaeda, they might be inclined to stay.

So, Bush has to play the demagogic cards he’s dealt. He can’t explain why he diverted attention away from al Qaeda in 2002 and 2003, in order to attack a country where al Qaeda had no meaningful presence at all. And he can’t explain that al Qaeda is responsible for about 5% of the violence in Iraq, so he tells sycophants what all war supporters want to hear — by staying in Iraq, we’re taking on the bastards responsible for 9/11. Just don’t look too closely at the fine print.

These awkward truths left White House press secretary Tony Snow with hard work at the podium in his first televised briefing since returning from cancer surgery.

Fox News Channel’s Bret Baier noted: “This morning the president said that al-Qaeda seems to be a bigger problem than sectarian violence. That seems to fly in the face of what we’ve heard in recent weeks and months on the ground in Iraq.”

“Well,” the game press secretary replied, “you’ve got a shifting series of circumstances.”

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell wasn’t convinced. “Wasn’t the whole point of the surge to quell the capital and really to diminish the sectarian violence? And now he seems to be saying the enemy is more al-Qaeda.”

Snow repeated his view that “there has been some change in status on the ground.”

By the look on Snow’s face, the press secretary seemed tempted to say, “Look, we have a perfectly good lie going here; can you stop bringing up reality? It’s crimping our style.”

Snow repeated his view that “there has been some change in status on the ground.”

I really wish someone in the press would have the balls to call him on this already. “Tony, what ground would that be? The ground under the Commander Guy because he’s talking out of his ass? It’s really hard to keep up with all these lies, isn’t it?”

  • In the White House’s imagination, al Qaeda is the source of the sectarian strife. The way they see it, everything was going fine, more or less, until the Samarra mosque was demolished. If they haven’t yet described it as such, it’s clear that the White House views that as a Pearl Harbor event which sparked the current conflict.

    That doesn’t explain how Tony Snow can assert that, somehow, more violent acts are being committed by al Qaeda directly than by sectarian fighters. Even against US forces.

    Hell, how do we even know who sets roadside bombs??

  • the fox noise reporter asked tony a semi-hard question? what’s this world coming to?

  • Oh my God. This is so sad. There are only two options.

    1) The whole world gets involved- Iraq is to be governed by the United Nations who will keep 500,000 blue helmets in that country on a continuing coordinated rotation for the next fifteen to twenty-five years.

    2) The downward spiral of civil war and sectarian violence continues until our troops are swallowed up and drown in the overwhelming melee, and are forced to retreat into helicopters on rooftops. There will be horrendous acts of genocide and terror, a Diaspora of millions and a possible regional or even world war before the dust settles.

    Either way, you can’t always expect a two year old to clean up his own mess. Sometimes that just can’t happen.

    Do the math. It’s right in front of your face.

  • A while back all the bombings, whoever did them, were routinely attributed to Zarqawi and his organization. Eventually they managed to kill Zarqawi, but the bombings continued at an increased pace. Now they’ve learned their lesson and they don’t have a specific individual to paint as the bogeyman, instead invoking a nebulous shadowy organization.

    Idiocy is invincible.

  • “you’ve got a shifting series of circumstances.”

    Not in Iraq, but back home, where people are looking to the Democrats for answers

  • So how many times did Bush mention Osama bin Laden — you know, the guy he promised to get dead or alive? Oh yeah, he can’t play that fearful card because it proves him to be a LIAR yet again.

  • What—the Osama card again? That’s like playing cut-throat poker with a twit who deals you 51 cards, and keeps the 3 of clubs to himself. Even a moronic mickey-mouse clubber like SnowFlake has got to know that he’s just dealt the anti-Bu$h team four royal flushes (plus a lot of other game-winning hands)—and he can’t even muster a simple pair of anything for his own side of the table.

    Oh…I’m sorry…I just used one of those ReThuglican “Shimkus analogy-type thingies,” against the administration, didn’t I?

  • “Well,” the game press secretary replied, “you’ve got a shifting series of circumstances.”

    You got a shifty lot of bastards clutching the steering wheel in US, that’s what you’ve got, Tony.

  • Quoting the Deserter-In-Chief:

    “This is an interesting, different type of war.”

    And freedom of the press is a valuable freedom here, and it’s just something that we’ve all got to live with and value it for what it is, and just continue to speak the truth as best as we can without trying to — without trying to gloss over the inherent dangers. “

    Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve. “

    These statements demonstrate George W. Bush’s unmitigated ignorance. It’s obvious that this “commander guy,” as he put it, is not in fact in charge. He is strictly a stage actor reading from a script. When he speaks extemporaneously, such as in the case of these statements, it is easy to come to exactly that conclusion.

    I wonder how long before the Bush Brownshirt 9/11 hijackers of democracy (aka the Cheney Administration) suppress these loony extemporaneous remarks from publication. I wonder if America will survive the “consequences of success.”

    P.S. Does anyone know what in blazes this little gem at the end of The White House press release mean:

    *our budget deficits are shrinking

  • Alright, I’m confused (as usual). I thought the AQ problem was pretty much concentrated in al Anbar – then why is the Surge all about Baghdad??

    The same bunch that is causing havoc in Iraq were the ones who came and murdered our citizens.

    Funny, I don’t remember hearing too much about any havoc in Iraq before March 19, 2003. Just *who* is responsible for “havoc in Iraq”???

  • Jkap–

    It’s obvious that this “commander guy,” as he put it, is not in fact in charge.

    I’ve always believed that Dubya was chosen because he was easily controlled by Cheany, Rumsfeld and other PNAC related people. The people surrounding him have been on the inside for many years and they needed someone–a Christian guy who was “down home” enough for most of middle america to vote for.

  • “It’s obvious that this “commander guy,” as he put it, is not in fact in charge.”

    Seems more like Jim Beam is in charge. Or maybe Johnny Walker, and his brothers Blackie & Red.

  • Comments are closed.