Bush can’t let go of bogus AQI talking point

Years ago, I was having a conversation with a jazz pianist who told me, “When I hit a wrong note, I keep hitting it — so the audience will think it’s intentional.” To move away from the wrong note would be a subtle admission of a mistake.

The president, apparently, lives by the same principle. For months, he’s insisted that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are one in the same. After some pushback from the blogs, reporters started to take note of the problem and highlight how blatantly wrong Bush is. But instead of subtly shifting his rhetoric to be truthful, the president has started to hit the wrong note more, not less.

President Bush made provocative new assertions Tuesday about Al Qaeda’s role in Iraq, using recently declassified information to make his case that the global battle with the terrorism network — and Americans’ safety at home — hinges on keeping U.S. troops there to fight.

Bush’s comments were met with skepticism by some terrorism experts and former U.S. intelligence officials, who said the president exaggerated or even misrepresented the facts in Iraq.

“Met with skepticism” is an exceedingly polite way of saying, “a bunch of people who know what they’re talking about were disappointed to hear Bush lying so blatantly again.”

The president, speaking to about 300 troops at Charleston Air Force Base in South Carolina, said AQI is composed of the same terrorists who were responsible for 9/11. “[D]espite all the evidence, some will tell you that Al Qaeda in Iraq is not really Al Qaeda and not really a threat to America,” the president said. “Well, that’s like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying’s he’s probably just there to cash a check.”

I have to admit, I love it when Bush lies when alluding to “the evidence.” It’s much funnier that way.

And what, pray tell, is the evidence to bolster the president’s false assertions? The LA Times reported, “White House officials said Bush used declassified intelligence reports and assessments to make his case, though they would not disclose details of where the information came from.”

No, of course not.

As long as the president is going to go to the trouble of misleading the country about a war, we might as well go to the trouble of documenting his errors.

* Bush said terrorists in Iraq would be committing acts of terror whether there was a war in Iraq or not. True? Not really.

[Experts and former U.S. intelligence officials] noted that the Iraq conflict had undoubtedly attracted Islamic extremists who were trained in Afghanistan and might have fought in other theaters. But some cited an official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate released last year that described Iraq as a “cause celebre” for Islamic radicals worldwide, fanning anger and resentment across the Muslim world and beyond.

“I think what the president is saying is in some sense fundamentally misleading,” said Robert Grenier, former head of the counter-terrorism center at the CIA as well as the agency’s mission manager for the war in Iraq. “If he means to suggest the invasion of Iraq has not created more jihadists bent on killing Americans, and that if Iraq hadn’t been there as a magnet they would have been attracted somewhere else, that’s completely disingenuous.”

* Bush said AQI is a domestic threat to the U.S. True? Not really.

Several experts said prevailing U.S. intelligence was at odds with that assertion as well.

Bruce Hoffman of Georgetown University, a veteran counter-terrorism analyst and government consultant, said the vast majority of fighters who are part of Al Qaeda in Iraq are Iraqis who have shown little interest in seeking targets beyond that country’s borders.

* Bush said al Qaeda and AQI are one in the same. True? No.

Some experts and former U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that the Iraq group had always had its own agenda, as evidenced by a public fallout between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader, Ayman Zawahiri, over Zarqawi’s killing of Shiite Muslims in Iraq. […]

Rand Beers, a former senior Bush and Clinton administration counter-terrorism official, said Bush was exaggerating the connections.

“There is no question that he is oversimplifying what is happening there in Iraq,” Beers said. “He is misrepresenting where the major front of Al Qaeda is, which is in Pakistan.”

* And Bush said AQI is the top threat in Iraq. True? No.

Anthony Cordesman, a security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International studies says, the U.S. military estimates that al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group thought to number several thousand, accounts for only about 15% of the attacks in Iraq.

Tony Snow said Bush’s speech was part of a new White House “surge of facts.”

Sometimes, the jokes write themselves.

The WH has its surge of facts, but I see a juggernaut of tragic reality about to hit them head on. (And who would be the pilot of such a destructive force? Why, The Dick Cheney of course!) -Kevo

  • In Bush’s defense, this is one of the least wrong things he’s saying these days. I mean, they do have “Al Qaeda” in their name, so good luck convincing Joe Frontporch that the president is kooky on this one. ‘Cuz Joe Frontporch doesn’t listen to counter-terrorsim analysts from Georgetown.

  • Whether AQI and AQ are related is probably too complicated for a lot of Americans to parse. But far more basic facts are still not cemented into the minds of many Americans. This is a huge problem, because facts are supposed to steer us to solutions we can all agree on.

    Please, someone in the media, do another big poll to see how many people still buy Bush’s BS in general, and which news station they listen to. I wonder how many people still believe that they found WMDs and that Saddam was involved in 9/11? I suspect that these myths are at the core of the dead-enders who still back Bush, and they’re gumming up the works.

    If we can’t get people to register basic facts, then we’re never going to find any solutions.

  • Bush is actually building up AQI and creating some self-actualizing scenarios. The more he harps on them the more attractive the AQI are to Arabs AND to the real Al Quaiduh. In some ways t\he really does create his own reality.

    It’s good that you done that, Georgie.

  • Bush beats the “Al Qaeda” drum to shore-up support in his political base (25% to 35% of Americans) for the Iraq war. He wouldn’t utter this “Al Qaeda is coming from Iraq to get us” bullshit, if it didn’t strength him with his base (i.e. – peg the needle at 35%). By lying, he keeps “the base” in line, and in turn, keeps the Republicans in Congress in line. It’s just a sad example of the “bully pulpit” being used to prolong his FUBAR disaster.

  • I heard a clip of this speech on NPR yesterday. he must have said “al Qaeda” about 20 times in 40 seconds. He sounded desperate… and the applause was quite restrained.
    And Grumpy, a lot of Joes know that AQ was not in Iraq before we invaded & occupied. If you run into one, ask them why we have not heard more about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in AQ & Iraqi terrorism.

  • Dale @ 7: Those weren’t the kind of polyps most people think of. Those were growths on his vocal chords because we all know he talks out of his…

  • It’s just one more example of picking and choosing the facts to fit the agenda – something that has been the hallmark of almost everything this administration has done.

    Facts that don’t fit are constructively invisible, rejected out-of-hand and conveniently ignored. I would say they spend more time trying to de-bunk the picture one gets when all the facts are accounted for – and isn’t is both sad and madddening that by considering the whole picture, there might have been solutions and strategies that could have helped reduce the threat from terrorism and made us all safer? It’s the goal they’ve said they were going for, but in being selective in their consideration of the intelligence, they have ended up going in the other direction.

    It’s Backwards World, writ large and dangerous.

  • Buzz, I’m not talking about pre-invasion AQ. I’m talking about trying to convince people that today’s “Al Qaeda in Iraq” isn’t Al Qaeda. By giving themselves that name, there’s a presumptive connection. Bush has chosen to fight on ground where he doesn’t have the burden of proof.

    Probably completely by accident, of course. He doesn’t seem to be too picky about when & where he fights.

  • Dale @ 7: Those weren’t the kind of polyps most people think of. Those were growths on his vocal chords because we all know he talks out of his…
    Comment by beep52

    Oh you’re right. Which makes it all the more believable that Dick Cheney is his ventriloquist.

  • How does Rove distract the nation from the lies of Gonzales? Why, with the bigger lies of Bush, of course.

  • Ah the secrecy “classified” thing: the trust me thing: ….rememeber McCarthy waving the paper with the “names” on it that was never revealed…?

    If AQ is in Iraq now it is thanks to this administration….because they weren’t there before we invaded. And Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 …just oil.

    This admin has destroyed Iraq and the lives of millions (over 4 million fled Iraq now and not sure how many dead or maimed.) Why? and Why did we let them do this? Yes I do feel guilt.

  • Bush has no choice but to lie to the troops. telling the truth would come out as “Crawl upon my altar of war-for-profit, and die a completely meaningless death for me.”

    “Impeach,” Ohioan? House ReThugs will just bury any move in that direction with amendments ad nauseum. There are but two ways to effectively remove a tyrant, whether that tyrant be a King, a Prime Minister, a President, or any other titular label afforded a head-of-State. Either a popular uprising against this administration through peaceful means, or one via the force of arms. And, it must begin with those who strive the most to keep the tyrant in power: Cheney, Rove, and Gonzales….

  • I wonder if even the troops are buying this anymore, or just tolerate it because they’ve been ordered to appear.

    Too bad nobody could sneak in and take a quick poll, I’ll bet it would be really interesting.

  • This is simply unbelievable. Gov. Howard Dean, DNC chairman said in an interview with Rachel Maddow on Air America radio yesterday that if we withdraw troops too quickly Al Qaeda will take over Iraq. Both Rachel and I were deeply shocked. I couldn;t believe he said that. Then he said it again. “We need to withdraw slowly because al qaeda could do it, they could take over the country unless we pull out slowly.” This is the DNC chairman? How could he be so totally misinformed to be spouting a Bush talking point?

    He went on to say that “… in the next couple of months we (the senate democrats) might get a few more republicans to vote on withdrawal, enough for the 60 votes but then Bush would just veto it and then we’d need 67 votes which is impossible so we are not going to be able to do anything about withdrawing from Iraq until we get a Democrat as president.”
    When Rachel informed him that many believe Democrats aren’t doing enough, that they could refuse to fund this occupation… He replied “… that would just leave the troops out in the open and hurt them and no one wants to be seen as not supporting the troops. So we just have to wait for the next president.”

    I used to like Dean too. It’s ass backwards. Supporting the troops means protecting them and not forcing them to die needlessly for a failed policy. It should not be seen that democrats in the senate don’t have enough votes to withdraw the troops but rather that republicans in the senate don’t have enough votes to continue funding the occupation.
    Is Bush holding Dean’s family hostage or what? The DNC chairman is telling us don’t do anything…just wait until we get a democrat president. Are Senate dems thinking this way too? Do nothing and fund watching hundreds more soldiers sacrifice their lives needlessly? How depressing and discouraging. God what has happened to this man?

  • Comments are closed.