McCain isn’t the only one confused about al Qaeda

March 20, 2008

There weren’t a lot of newsworthy tidbits in the president’s speech about Iraq and the Middle East yesterday; it was more or less boilerplate language and arguments. The war is worthwhile, victory is around the corner, history will justify Bush’s actions, etc.

But it’s probably worth noting that the president’s arguments as they relate to al Qaeda made even less sense than usual.

“With such chaos in Iraq, the terrorist movement could emerge emboldened with new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to dominate the region and harm America, and embolden al Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources, could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to attack America and other free nations.”

It’s quite a picture Bush painted. If Americans withdraw, al Qaeda would take over, have at least some control over Iraq’s oil, and then use the profits to somehow amass some kind of military arsenal.

None of this makes any sense at all. As Joe Klein wrote a few weeks ago, after John McCain made a similar argument, “Last time I checked, Iraq has a Shi’ite majority. McCain thinks the Shi’ites — the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps (and yes, the Iranians) — would allow a small group of Sunni extremists to take over?”

Better yet, a White House reporter asked Dana Perino a critically important question after Bush’s speech: “I don’t understand how a fragmented, clandestine, non-Iraqi terrorist organization could produce and sell Iraqi oil on the global market, especially when the majority of Iraqis have turned against al Qaeda. Could you describe a plausible scenario?”

Perino had a little trouble with this one.

TP has the video — which is worth watching because Perino was visibly angry — but the exchange was illustrative of just how shallow the White House’s talking points are.

PERINO: The purpose of what the President said is that al Qaeda should not be allowed to have safe haven in Iraq and take over —

Q: How can they take over Iraq’s oil reserves —

PERINO: Well, if we were to leave we would certainly ensue chaos and not be able to — if we were to leave too soon, it would certainly be chaos and it would be terrible for not only the innocent Iraqis, but the entire region and, in fact, our own national security. That’s what the President —

Q: But the Iraqis would let a foreign terrorist organization take over their oil?

PERINO: You’re missing the point, and I think that you should go back and read —

Q: No, I —

PERINO: Yes, actually, I think you are missing the point. And I call on you because I see what you write about how you come here and you really want to have questions asked. And I’m calling on you and I’m providing it to you, but I suggest that you read the President’s speech and read it in context, because that’s — what you’re suggesting is not what the President said.

This isn’t complicated. The president told the nation, “An emboldened al Qaeda with access to Iraq’s oil resources could pursue its ambitions to acquire weapons of mass destruction to attack America and other free nations.” The claim is absurd, and asked to defend it, the White House couldn’t. Indeed, if we take Bush’s words at face value, and consider them in context, we’re necessarily “missing the point,” as far as the president’s chief spokesperson is concerned.

It fascinates me that even now, as the war begins its sixth year, the White House is still struggling to come up with arguments that make sense and can withstand even cursory scrutiny.

What does it say about the policy itself when the president finds it necessary to make ridiculous arguments, in public, in the hopes of scaring Americans? If Bush can’t even speak coherently about Iraq and al Qaeda now, how can any serious person find him credible on any subject? And why on Earth is the Republican nominee on the campaign trail peddling the exact same nonsense?

Post Script: On a related note, Olivier Roy recently had a good item explaining that those arguing that al Qaeda will take over Iraq if we withdraw haven’t the foggiest idea what they’re talking about. Regrettably, this includes the president and the Republican who wants to replace him.

“Q: But the Iraqis would let a foreign terrorist organization take over their oil?”

No, just us.

Come to think of it, we’re having a hard enough time getting Iraqi oil to market. They usually blame Al Qaeda for sabotaging oil facilities. Maybe if Al Qaeda took over Iraq’s oil, production would become more reliable, and the global price would go down.

Then Al Qaeda would grow rich & fat and forget about terrorism.

  • Nothing to see here, cause there is a stain on a blue dress. The media has to cover the important stuff.

    Deeply depressing.

  • and then Donald Rumsfeld could sell them stuff and have his picture taken shaking OBL’s hand.

  • You mean the lying liar scum that is currently pretending to be a “press secretary” for the lying liars behind the criminal cabal that is behind this administration cannot be counted on to speak directly and honestly to the American people?

    Image my shock and surprise – they stole 2 elections, enabled 9/11, used it to destroy our democracy and launch a war of aggression in Iraq, and have continually let the people down when there are disasters, economic troubles, or national emergencies….

    And the press secretary is a liar that cannot stand scrutiny? And what about this is “news”?

  • Not sure what “if we were to leave we would certainly ensue chaos” means. Aside from atrocious grammar, what’s chaotic about having a dollar which isn’t worth anything anymore and owing $9 trillion of them to Asia? Can’t we just coast on our good looks and a smile? Ya know?

  • Ya. I think I’ve heard this before, except the part about this terrorist movement.

    So we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to confront a terrorist movement here at home.

    We have always been fighting them. And they are always out to attack us, so we have to attack them first.

    Bush doesn’t think it is really important to tell us who they are, but he reassures us that this terrorist movement is real and ready to take over countries such as the commies of yesteryear.

    This guy is a douchebag.

  • Consider that much of Bush’s listening audience sometimes has trouble finding their own car in a large parking lot, and then see if you still think they know the difference between Sunni and Shia’a, militia and insurgent, policy and talking out of your ass. Bush relies on his audience to be broadly even dumber than he is. Sadly, it’s often a safe bet. It’d be nice if an informed public immediately discerned the blatant falsehoods Bush and Cheney feed them, and flooded local media with calls and articles exhorting the president and veep to stop lying. Sadly, that’s only happened on a very small scale, and I’m afraid I don’t expect significant improvement soon. Most people’s sense of entitlement forms a protective shunt between their ears and their brains.

  • In a sense I think this is a case of not seeing the forest through the trees. Bush has consistently made the argument that it is us versus them. You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists. He does not draw a distinction between Al Qaeda and France, between Iran and liberal elites, or between Iran and Al Qaeda. The “us” is him and the unified Republican machine. The “them” is everyone else. To the “us” everything else is just nit-picking.

  • Once again, excellent analysis of the confusion that is the Bush White House. This is really the wizard of Oz. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain.

  • What does it say about the policy itself when the president finds it necessary to make ridiculous arguments, in public, in the hopes of scaring Americans? If Bush can’t even speak coherently about Iraq and al Qaeda now, how can any serious person find him credible on any subject? And why on Earth is the Republican nominee on the campaign trail peddling the exact same nonsense?

    What does it say about the policy? It says that it works. And it works because the press corpse thinks their job is to repeat lies without calling them lies, because to do otherwise would be unfair. Their bosses also benefit from the tax policies of the liars, so do the math.

    Why on Earth is the Republican nominee on the campaign trail peddling the exact same nonsense? Because the press corpse loves McCain and he knows that his candidacy relies on him getting away with peddling nonsense. If he succeeds or not depends on whether 51% of the voters in the fall have enough brains to see through the BOOGA BOOGA SCARY MUSLIMS routine that these clowns keep successfully peddling.

    I’m with Mark, unfortunately. After all we’ve learned, we’ve still got a lot of people who think Saddam was involved in 9/11*. It won’t be hard to convince them that the Shiites in Iran would support Sunni terrorists.

    * There was a good example on the News Hour last night:

    MARK MCLAIN: I believe that the Iraq war in the beginning was a feel-good, you know, retribution, “We’re going to go get the guys that did this from 9/11.” And I’m behind that 100 percent. I bleed American red, just like everybody in this room.

    But I’m afraid that over time our government has become skewed in their decisions for the reasons why the troops are there. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, that was awesome.

    Our soldiers are heroes. They have freed a people from a dictator that was unlike anything, anything horrible, since probably the Holocaust. And that’s great.

    But I want to make sure that we have a plan, you know, that there is an end in sight and that we’re not trading blood for oil. And I’m not so sure that we’re not too far from that now.

    Our military service personnel are — they’re doing their jobs and they’re doing it well. And I applaud them. But I’m just afraid that our government may be overextending them.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june08/bpiraq_03-19.html

    Notice how the guy does not support the endless war, he should have every reason to understand that Saddam was not behind 9/11, and yet there he is reinforcing the myth. Makes me want to rip my hair out.

  • Yesterday there was discussion about McCain “mistakes” and also Bush illogic.

    But somehow the two could fit together to get a weird logical result.

    Bush said that there is an uprising against Al Qaeda’s Obama bin Laden, so the war in Iraq has finally become a place where the Islamic world rejects him.

    Well, who could be fighting against them in Iraq? Maybe McCain was on to something when he said that extremists were trained in Iran and brought back into Iraq to fight.

    So, maybe Iran is trying to defeat bin Laden in Iraq?

    Maybe someone could ask Perino about that possibility?

    This is the reason that the Republicans want to keep the different groups as a foggy mess. They can then be used for good or bad from day to day, and if someone makes a mistake, it only adds to the uncertainty. What could be more scary than that?

  • little bear @ #4: “You mean the lying liar scum that is currently pretending to be a “press secretary” for the lying liars behind the criminal cabal that is behind this administration cannot be counted on to speak directly and honestly to the American people?”

    Perino doesn’t make this stuff up on her own. They have conferences about how to put out a coherent message. Someone decided that “Al Qaeda will get Iraq’s oil” was what they were going to say, so she had to stick with it.

    Or maybe not, which would be more pitiable. If there was no message conference, then Perino’s job is to defend her boss’s BS on the fly. Whatever he says, goes, even if it’s obviously nonsense.

  • Who’d have thought I’d ever long for the pinchably dishonest cheeks of Scott McClellan? Now there was a guy who could lie. Dana is a novice.

  • Well all I can say is thank God al Qaeda has no support from people like the Saudis because then they’d have access to truckloads of money given to them from extremely wealthy Saudis who have a pipeline of money pouring in from the US and a religiously compatible Sunni orientation. Why if Saudis were involved with al Qaeda there’s no way George “dances with swords” Bush would take punitive action against them and then our goose would truly be cooked. You see, by having to do things the hard way by being a minority group of outsiders taking over the Iraqi oil industry against their will it will be much harder for them to have access to cash. Boy, we are truly lucky things are the way Bush presents them, otherwise there would reason for some serious concern.

    …. We’re screwed.

  • whatever the opposite of “divide and conquer” is, that’s the bush/mcCain strategery.

    oh, and fwiw, dan abrams on MSNBC just started a “teflon john” segment about mcSame fluffery. (i used to speak english, you know.)

  • There’s a difference between missing a point and it’s being true.

    Points that are wrong SHOULD be missed.
    Trying to understand incorrect premises is a waste of time.

    Kind of like the Iraq occupation itself, but less bloody and expensive.

  • RacerX #10 –

    I’m not sure he believes the myth so much as he really doesn’t care – he was pissed off, and so he’s all for us lashing out at someone. Gotta release that testosterone ya know. Iraq has a bad guy in charge and they’re in the neighborhood, and close is good enough. Just so long as someone gets bombed to dust to assuage my righteous anger.

    So very, sadly American.

  • I wonder if we could have even won the war in Afghanistan if we had limited our response to just them. I don’t really think so but i guess we’ll never know since Georgie had to go to Iraq.

  • Consider that much of Bush’s listening audience sometimes has trouble finding their own car in a large parking lot, […] — Mark, @7

    Hey, that’s me! A female with a small brain, who’s having problems with spacial relations. But I don’t listen to the Shrub (can’t stand the guy and, besides, I’m not Moses) and I do know the difference between the Shia and the Sunni. Well… I know enough to know that he’s blathering.

    And about that oil… There was an interesting article in NYT, sometime over the weekend, I think. How the number of gas stations in Iraq has multiplied beyond imagination. But they’re still as empty of gas as they had been during Saddam’s days. Apparently, what happens is that fully a third of the gas that’s supposed to be delivered to them — at prices capped by the govt, socialist style (*just like* during Saddam’s days, BTW) — disappears in transit and ends up on the black market, making a mint for… someone.

    So it’s not just the lowered production at the oil fields. It’s also the corruption later on. Remember how the Iraqi oil was supposed to pay for the reconstruction (and leave a good chunk of cheap-o stuff for US)? Not happening.

  • If the people who can speak the “truth” would dumb it down to the level that the White House has perfected to reach the majority of Americans, there could be a heightened awareness among the masses. However, unfortunately, the elitist mentality of the majority of those who are calling things as they are cloud the issue with insults and higher-than-thou commentary.
    It’s all about the spin – and the White House knows exactly which strings to play to elicit a response, why aren’t we doing the same?

  • I feel sad. I watch news all day. I pay attention to at least 5 sources of news and today is the first time I ever stumbled across this story. I got here on a link from Salon. How did I miss this? That reporter has done us a great service with that question and DP, cute as she is looked like an imbecile that thought (Correctly) that we are too stupid to see through this. Where is our Main Stream Media? Come on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS…WTF?

    • Comments are closed.