Al Qaeda gaining strength is good news for Bush?

July 12, 2007

For several years, all the talk from the White House about al Qaeda has been unwaveringly positive. We have the terrorists “on the run.” We’ve detained or killed “more than three quarters of al Queda’s key members and associates.” We’re winning; they’re losing. We’re getting stronger; they’re getting weaker.

It all sounds very encouraging, except it’s false.

Three top U.S. intelligence officials said Wednesday that a resurgent Al Qaeda had stepped up training and worldwide operations from safe havens in Pakistan, a development they worry could lead to ambitious new attacks. […]

Even without seeing indicators of a specific attack, officials said, they do believe that the overall risk from Al Qaeda is rising. The U.S. attacks on Al Qaeda’s former base in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001 severely disrupted Osama bin Laden’s network. But since then, Al Qaeda has rebuilt its headquarters in Pakistan and is more dangerous than at any time since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a new classified threat assessment.

Kringen said that Bin Laden is being protected by powerful local tribal leaders along the Afghan-Pakistani border and that the safe haven has enabled his network to regroup and rebuild its ability to strike the United States.

Obviously, this is awful, horrifying news. Bush’s foreign policy and national security strategy has been focused for nearly six years on undermining the terrorist threat. At the heart of the president’s strategy is the notion that a war in Iraq will somehow weaken the same terrorist network that was responsible for 9/11. We’re fighting them there so we won’t have to face them here.

Except the entire strategy has failed. Iraq is a debacle for the ages and al Qaeda is now viewed by U.S. officials as stronger than ever. The very goals the president set out to achieve have produced tragic results.

Naturally, therefore, the Associated Press characterizes these revelations as encouraging news for the White House.

From today’s piece by Matthew Lee and Katherine Shrader:

The findings could bolster the president’s hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

Lee and Shrader don’t point to anything specific; they just assert that a stronger al Qaeda is necessarily the kind of thing that will improve the president’s position in the midst of a debate on Iraq.

Indeed, the same AP feed quotes Tony Snow saying, “The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida,” without pointing out that we already know how completely wrong this is.

Matt Yglesias tries to set the AP straight.

I mean, look, anything’s possible especially if the press is going to pre-emptively report the news in an up-is-down manner without need for aggressive administration spinning, but the intuitive thing to say here is that it’s likely to weaken Bush’s hand and strengthen the hand of those arguing that the country needs new policies. The point of the report, after all, is that just as war-skeptics have been saying, while the Bush administration’s been chasing its own turds in circles in Iraq, al-Qaeda’s been rebuilding its capacities in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area and parts of Europe.

And conservatives continue to wonder why the left is so frustrated by the traditional media.

I’m no fan of the MSM, but I’m not sure the AP deserves much criticism over this one. They don’t portray it as “good news,” they just say that it may strengthen his hand. Unfortunately, there’s some truth in that: his Administration is built on fear, and anything that increases the general level of hysteria about AQ attacks in this country has, for too long, tended to result in a bump in his ratings. Obviously, this is a pernicious effect, and we may all hope that the country has finally begun to come to its senses about this, and see such news as proof that the Admin has failed, but it ain’t necessarily true yet. Let’s see –

  • It IS good news for Bush. Means more war. More Death. More hatred. More money for hi-tek gee whiz weapons systems that are useless for this kind of war. More justification for a failed “stratergy” More crisis. Keeps oil prices high. Etc.

    Jeez, now that I think about it, this article makes Bush out to be the Space Cockroach, excuse me, Bug, from Men in Black or at the very very least, he’s the brain damaged 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse, Ignoranus.

  • After reading Hilzoy on this, I would explain my earlier comment a little more. The difference in how I see it vs. how CB and Hilzoy see it seems to depend on whether you’re talking about how the country should react, vs. how it has in the past. And yes, it might be nice if the media helped the process along by pointing out that this news should undercut confidence in Bush’s disastrous policies, but that would require adding a little active advocacy to what would otherwise be straight reporting. And I’m not sure that it’s reasonable (or even desirable) to expect that. You could even argue that the AP’s take is, in some ways, a good thing, because it fits right into the argument that this latest news on AQ is just another example of the Bush Admin manipulating the news in order to obtain a bump in its ratings, which was my reaction to the story.

    At this late date, does anybody still believe that this sort of story is released without considering the effect on Bush’s ratings? Ask the former Surgeon General about that –

  • If you’re going to tell a lie, make it a big one. -Homer #2

    Where’s the plane that supposedly crashed into the pentagon? And why did WTC 7 fall down when nothing hit it?

    Is it possible 9-11 and the “war on terror” are nothing but the biggest grift in the history of the world?

  • “Is it possible 9-11 and the “war on terror” are nothing but the biggest grift in the history of the world?”

    I think South Park did a take off on that last night.

  • There seems to be a mind-set among the media, and some politicians, that anything related to security and possible attack benefits the president and strengthens his hand, for the sole reason that Bush was the president when we were attacked, and he showed himself to be pretty handy with a bullhorn, while standing on a pile of rubble.

    The “bullhorn moment” eclipsed for some the “My Pet Goat” moment, when the president’s face, frozen in fear, was visible to the country for an agonizingly long 7 minutes. Had there been more attention to what those particular minutes revealed, we might all have been more skeptical about Bush’s ability to handle events going forward.

    The fact is that we are less safe, that terrorist attacks have increased world-wide, and that little has been done to secure ports and borders, to screen cargo, and secure and protect nuclear and chemical facilities. The administration’s record on these areas has been and continues to be abysmal, and an attack that would occur now would be a direct result of their inattention.

    Oh, I understand that they want to be viewed as being strong on terror, but they are as strong on terror in the same way as they have been strong in their support for the troops and for veterans.

    The administration is busy trying to frame the dialogue in advance of an attack, with Tony Snow claiming that “fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here” was never intended to mean that an attack could never happen here; I guess this is just like the “stay the course was never the administration’s policy.” Yeah, okay. Tony has even off-handedly said that all it takes is a plane ticket – and I can’t decide if this is meant to help them advance the argument that “no one could have anticipated” or “no system could have prevented,” or whether Tony – and Mike Chertoff and his “gut feeling” – think they can just talk out of their asses without consequence. I’m guessing they want it both ways.

    What continues to be so depressing is the complete inability of so much of the media to get their facts right, to challenge the assertions of the administration, and to hold them to any level of accountability. “Bush said” is not journalism, it’s stenography.

  • If you’re going to tell a lie, make it a big one.

    That depends, actually.

    This whole Iraq thing is a distraction. It’s like if there’s one woman who’s awesome and you should totally marry, but instead of asking her out, you decide to pursue another woman who outdoes the first in some physical attributes, explaining to your friends that somehow it’s necessary to reach the ultimate goal, when the first girl is actually too sophisticated to fall for some kind of psych out like that, and all you’re actually doing is making yourself look to everybody like the asshole you’re actually being.

    Pakistan/the Afghani border/the Al Qaeda investigation and pursuing Bin Laden- this campaign is the first woman, and Iraq is the second one, the ditz that Bush and Cheney are lusting after, that they are leading all of us, their bumbling, hapless buddies, in a wild goose chase to win over.

  • Swannie @8 – I must admit, I really could not follow your analogy. I think the point is more along the lines of Orwellian Newspeak in that losing is winning. All you have to do is repeat the BS enough times and a certain substantial portion of the population will believe it (apparently, roughly 25%) no matter what. To the extent you’re saying that our focus should be – and should have been all along – on Afghanistan and al-qaeda and not on Iraq, well then there I definitely agree with you.

  • After WWII, we hired lots of former Nazis to help us with our space program. Did we hire Baghdad Bob to help us with our propaganda efforts?

    “My feelings – as usual – we will slaughter them all”

    “Our initial assessment is that they will all die”

  • Re: Haik @ #5
    And why did WTC 7 fall down when nothing hit it?

    Oh, you mean the 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that completely collapsed at 5:20 PM ET, 9/11/2001, some 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers, although it was not struck by an aircraft? You mean WTC7, which was apparently not relevant to an investigation of the events of 9/11 since any reference to WTC7 is entirely omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report?

    What’s the matter? You don’t think that the 9/11 Commission succeeded in its mission “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,” the same 9/11 Commission that Dick & Bush insisted upon testifying to together, in private, not under oath, and without transcript?

    What, do you want to re-investigate 9/11? Don’t you remember how Dick & Bush fought the creation of the 9/11 Commission tooth-and-nail in the first place?

  • Homer, my first sentence in comment #8 has nothing to do with the rest of the comment, is completely seperable from it, and only a response to your previous comment. I don’t know if this helps.

    Let’s say a kid has two goals- to win a video game he owns, and to get good grades for one quarter in school. He tells his parents he can’t start studying more to meet the second goal because he needs to beat the video game first so he’ll be satisfied enough to focus on the second goal. The first goal is a more purely hedonistic thing and isn’t really important, won’t have as many total benefits; the second goal is a more delayed-gratification type thing and is a far more meaningful goal to reach. Because the attraction of the first goal is more immediate, it has potential to lead the actor to not put enough effort towards the second goal because of the effort he or she is putting toward the first.

    The hapless, bumbling buddy thing was collateral and not important to my main metaphor, kind of a mini-metaphor I threw in there to suggest how so many of us liberals are not getting hip to how to successfully oppose these Republicans, so late in the game. Think of Ferris Bueller and Alvin and the Chipmunks and stuff like that- I was thinking of all those movies where the formula is one guy is a dynamic schemer who is always out for gratification, and his buddies are kind of betas that submit to his schemes (invariably described as “hare-brained schemes”) because they get something, vicariously or whatever, out of letting this dynamic character steer the course. The psychological motivations there aren’t part of my metaphor, though (I don’t think it’s the case w/ liberals as regards Cheney) which is why I didn’t suggest them in my original comment.

  • Bush’s foreign policy and national security strategy has been focused for nearly six years on undermining the terrorist threat.

    Well, that’s what he said, anyway. You can always trust a man who talks with a fake Texas twang to conceal the fact coke and booze have ravaged the speech centres of his brain.

    I’m sure he’ll be along shortly to explain why the presence of Al-Q operatives in Pakistan means we must bomb Iran.

    tAiO

    Re: The Pentagon aka My Favourite Conspiracy: I know people who were in the building during the attack and a few fire fighters who responded to the emergency. Yes, it was a big fucking plane that nearly made the Pentagon into a square. Not a missle, not specially trained radioactive snakeheads. A. Plane.

    Sorry to spoil the fun.

  • I would be correct to state that Al Qaeda’s resurgence is a windfall for Bush. But only because I am a cynic who understands that perception trumps reality; the average american will rally around the flag when faced with perceived threats.

    However, a newspaper would not be correct to say the same. Mainly, because the press has an opportunity to dispel cynical manipulations by the government. And they can prevent citizens from knee-jerk nationalism that undermines our democracy.

  • Hey orange, did your friends say anything about the lack of plane junk on the lawn?

    thanks

  • Put the Preznit through a variety of stress positions, and fire up the waterboard – he’ll sing like a canary. Unfortunately, investigators will discover the resemblance doesn’t end there, and that he is as smart as a canary.

  • We already knew then what we know now, and we already know now what we will know then.

    What a waste…all of the deaths and we are less safe now than before we invaded Iraq.
    Bush’s Iraq policy has strengthened al qaeda every where else and his answer is to escalate in Iraq to kill al queda which makes them grow everywhere else.

    Bush will never leave Iraq unless he is forced to and we must force him to. Not a drawdown, not leaving a force to train Iraqis(my god, if they aren’t trained by now they never will be), but a complete withdrawal and redeployment. Get a council of peacekeepers from surrounding countries to stabilize Iraq…whatever but get out of Iraq’s civil war.
    These warring groups in Iraq will come to their own agreements out of necessity but we need to quit interfering and get out completely.
    That in itself will do more to combat al qaeda than our occupation. Plus Iraqis will throw al qaeda out without our help.

    Stop fantasizing or listening to anything this administration proposes. Our being in Iraq will do nothing to prevent al qaeda from trying to attack us. Stop Bush before he attacks Iran too.

    Everyday I live in fear of my president…of what he might do next. And made to feel powerless by a congress that thinks impeachment is “a waste of time”.

  • Isn’t it crucial to make a distinction between “al Qaeda” and “al Qaeda in Iraq”? The former is the group that actually attacked us and has never really had anything to do with Iraq, and the latter is a Sunni insurgent group in Iraq which didn’t exist until after Bush invaded Iraq and is not known to have any operational ties to “al Qaeda”.

  • Hey orange***we just have to take your buddies word on that cause for some reason all the in place security videos from surrounding businesses had their recordings confiscated and disappeared. Other witnesses to the event who saw something different…can’t talk and ain’t it funny how quickly all evidence disappeared..Not even one damn picture…just saying

  • A brief viewing of the Pentagon and surrounding area, particularly the side that was hit, would reveal that questions like “Where was the airplane junk?” (I know you can figure this one out.) and “What about stolen security cameras from surrounding businesses?” (Heh.) rank down there with “If there’s global warming why did it snow so much last winter, huh?” in terms of relevance.

    (And please tell me you aren’t relying on pictures that show a fairly small hole in a grafitti covered wall to support your contention, please?)

    As I said, sorry to spoil the fun. A bunch of guys with box cutters got their hands on some jets and rammed them into a few places they didn’t belong, including the Pentagon.

  • The Corporate/Media (it should be just one word) will trumpet “Al Qaeda threat” for weeks overshadowing Vetter, Taylor/Miers, Executive Privilege, Libby (is almost forgotten already) and Shrub’s headlong rush to his next war. I wouldn’t be sure who Al Qaeda in Iraq is working for. Al Qaeda in Iraq threatens war with Iran(in 2 months). We are arming at least one group of Sunnis and Al Qaeda is strictly Sunni. Obviously, just a coincidence. Musharaff and his Red Mosque debacle has his government, if you call it that, at a weak point and they already have nukes and “treaties” with Taliban/Osama/Al Qaeda at Pakistan-Afghanistan border. $hrub’s specially selected General BetrayUs will give a report in September. Recently he said “the average counter insurgency is somewhere around a 9 to 10 year endeavor.” Can Gen. BetrayUs point to a successful counter insurgency? Our attitude should be “Take the keys away from the drunk at the wheel before he gets us in another wreck” instead our leadership is allowing the loose nut at the wheel to have his finger on the button while contemplating dropping nukes on a culture that believes in “an eye for an eye,” literally. Assuming he hasn’t already made up what goes for a mind in that useless head. I think Dead Eye Dick screened briefers to the Shrub to reinforce what Dead Eye Dick told the Bushbot to think. The frightening thing here is that everyone accepts that the next president won’t be Forrest Gump so there is an urgency to get our current Presidunce to bomb Iran before he is finally dragged away from his office where he’ll be holed up with Laura and Barney. My point is, even the IDF acknowledges that Iran won’t have a nuke until 2012, so why all the urgency with the sabre rattling now? Obviously, because the next president won’t be another Forrest Gump. Congress has to remove this president or you won’t need to worry about your children’s future.

  • Re: tAiO @ #20
    (And please tell me you aren’t relying on pictures that show a fairly small hole in a graffiti covered wall to support your contention, please?)

    How’s this for grafitti?

  • A nuclear ground burst is the dirtiest type of explosion as far as putting irradiated or nuclear material into the atmosphere. Dropping multiple conventional or nuclear warheads on several nuclear facilities. That is multiple opportunities to produce nuclear fallout and resultant deaths far worse than Chernobyl over a larger area. Chernobyl, 21 years later. “Over 90% of Belarus was affected by radiation” Go ask the Cambodians and Vietnamese how they feel about the after-effects of Agent Orange on their children and multiply that by many times for the backlash for nuking Iran. Russian pilots flying over Afghanistan scraped the numbers off their planes so that the relatives of the people they were killing on the ground wouldn’t come back and kill the pilot’s children. What reason do you suppose they had for that?

  • Let me just say, if the Bushies put out this NIE in the hopes of drumming up support amongst the populace for the Iraq war, it ain’t gonna work. Nov’06 should have told them the fear card was no longer recognized by the public.

    But, if all this recent talk about another possible attack occuring here is some kind of foreshadowing of things to come; that makes all sorts of sense. Actually I tinfoil hate firmly in place expect one by Sept. They’ll blame it on Iran and the bombs will fall. I’m not implying a black flag type op; but perhaps, through benign neglect, one does occur.

    The reason I say Sept is two-fold. Can’t be Aug, W would have to cancel part of his monthlong vacation /snark. 2) They just informed Singapore officials that W and Condi would not be attending the ASEAN Summit set for Sept 5. WH is saying it’s because Petreus report will be due around then…. I’m thinking entirely different reasons.

  • I’ve been to Shanksville to where Flight 93 went down. The locals say that when the fire crews showed up expecting to find a crashed plane and possible survivors, luggage, etc. they were astounded because there was nothing but a ditch left. Everything was blown to bits. They flew in arborists from all over the country to pick bits out of the trees. Graphic, but apparently, the explosion is fierce. Nothing was recognizable.

    • Comments are closed.