Hey Jack Riccardi: Al-Queda did Not Exist In Iraq before 9/11

[Nbadan]

Heard Jack claim on his show today that there was 'mounting evidence', although he didn't get into specifics, that Al-Queda existed in Iraq during the Saddam era....

NYT: Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 13, 2007


BAGHDAD, July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq, President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months, as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone, he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq.

But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001, have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.

There is no question that the group is one of the most dangerous in Iraq. But Mr. Bush’s critics argue that he has overstated the Qaeda connection in an attempt to exploit the same kinds of post-Sept. 11 emotions that helped him win support for the invasion in the first place.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the Sept. 11 attacks. The Sunni group thrived as a magnet for recruiting and a force for violence largely because of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which brought an American occupying force of more than 100,000 troops to the heart of the Middle East, and led to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad....

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html?hp)

You would think that a radio hosts who is only on the air 3 hours a day would have time to get his facts straight, but apparently Riccardi gets his news from FAUX...

[boutons_]

dubya has lied and lied and lied to exploit 9/11 for Repub partisan objectives, NOT for American security objectives. Iraq is just one huge lie, AQ in Iraq before dubya invited them in by baiting Iraq with US military is just one more lie in a litany of lies.

dubya and dickhead have way too many, and continue to lie, that most serious Americans simply don't believe dubya and dickhead anymore.

[Yonivore]

Heard Jack claim on his show today that there was 'mounting evidence', although he didn't get into specifics, that Al-Queda existed in Iraq during the Saddam era....

[B]NYT: Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: July 13, 2007



NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html?hp)

You would think that a radio hosts who is only on the air 3 hours a day would have time to get his facts straight, but apparently Riccardi gets his news from FAUX...
Uh, Dan...we all concede that the group "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" did not exist prior to our invasion. However, you're still missing the point that just because they hadn't written their by laws, purchased a headquarters, and decided on a name that doesn't mean al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion.

Zarqawi fled Afghanistan for Iraq after our invasion there. Brought a bunch of his buddies with him. Captured Iraqi documents indicate Zarqawi was in Iraq before he joined the jihad in Afghanistan.

There's a big difference between saying, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," the group, didn't exist prior to our invasion and saying, "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq," prior to our invasion.

You're welcome

[George Gervin's Afro]

Uh, Dan...we all concede that the group "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" did not exist prior to our invasion. However, you're still missing the point that just because they hadn't written their by laws, purchased a headquarters, and decided on a name that doesn't mean al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the invasion.

Zarqawi fled Afghanistan for Iraq after our invasion there. Brought a bunch of his buddies with him. Captured Iraqi documents indicate Zarqawi was in Iraq before he joined the jihad in Afghanistan.

There's a big difference between saying, "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," the group, didn't exist prior to our invasion and saying, "al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq," prior to our invasion.

You're welcome


Well I guess they could have been in Iraq on vacation.

[Yonivore]

Well I guess they could have been in Iraq on vacation.
Or training, or organizing, or getting the hell out of Afghanistan.

Take your pick but, the fact remains, al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the U. S. invasion.

[clambake]

Or training, or organizing, or getting the hell out of Afghanistan.

Take your pick but, the fact remains, al Qaeda was in the United States prior to the U. S. invasion.

I agree with this.

[boutons_]

"al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the U. S. invasion."

and total inconsequence to terrorism and US security. Like Saddam, they were NO THREAT to the USA, and did not justify 10's of 1000s of US casualties.

[johnsmith]

I agree with this.


I don't.

[PixelPusher]

I don't.
Brilliant. Al Qaeda used remote control to guide those planes into the WTC towers from the safety of Saddam's Palace.

[johnsmith]

Brilliant. Al Qaeda used remote control to guide those planes into the WTC towers from the safety of Saddam's Palace.


Go read the rest of the threads jackass. Clambake said that Al Qaeda was in America prior to the U.S. Invasion.

Not the attack on the WTC, but the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.


Brilliant.

[Yonivore]

Go read the rest of the threads jackass. Clambake said that Al Qaeda was in America prior to the U.S. Invasion.

Not the attack on the WTC, but the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.


Brilliant.
I think he's actually trying to argue that if we're contending al Qaeda was in Iraq how could they also have flown jets into the World Trade Center.

That's kind of like arguing there's no way the United States Military can be in Afghanistan, Iraq, The Phillipines, and Somalia and we still see them driving on and off of base at Fort Hood. I guess it just doesn't computer with some people.

Pixel must believe al Qaedans are all physically connected and can't be in multiple places at the same time.

I could be wrong because, well, I only have the benefit of what you've quoted them saying; I have both PixelPusher and clambake on ignore.

[clambake]

I could be wrong because, well, I only have the benefit of what you've quoted them saying; I have PixelPusher, clambake and Negroes on ignore.


We know you do.

[PixelPusher]

Go read the rest of the threads jackass. Clambake said that Al Qaeda was in America prior to the U.S. Invasion.

Not the attack on the WTC, but the U.S. Invasion of Iraq.


Brilliant.
The WTC attacks occured before our Iraq invasion, but if you want to be anal about the timeline...


Al Qaeda forming new cells worldwide (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/31/al.qaeda.super.cells/)
July 31, 2002 Posted: 10:45 PM EDT (0245 GMT)

From Mike Boettcher
CNN

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Al Qaeda members who fled Afghanistan after the U.S.-led counter-terrorism offensive began last fall are forming what anti-terror coalition intelligence analysts are calling "super cells" in locations stretching from North Africa to Southeast Asia.

Coalition intelligence said al Qaeda operatives in coalition custody told their interrogators that men who trained in Afghan camps run by Osama bin Laden have returned to their home nations. There, they have formed alliances with other extremist groups to create "super cells," while the main al Qaeda leadership struggles to regroup, sources said.

During testimony Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan has disrupted the terror network's activities. Still, he said, al Qaeda continues to have operatives in more than 60 countries, including the United States.

"For every terrorist plot we discover and every terrorist cell we disrupt, there are dozens of others in the works," Rumsfeld said.

The United States doesn't know whether bin Laden is dead or alive, said Rumsfeld, who noted that "plenty of people" -- about six to 12 other top al Qaeda leaders -- can fill bin Laden's place.

"They know where the bank accounts are, they know the names of the people who were trained, they know the sleeper cells that exist around the world," Rumsfeld said.

Gen. Tommy Franks, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command, who testified at the same hearing, said al Qaeda's senior leadership "is in disarray" because of the war.

"However, al Qaeda has not lost its will to conceive, plan and execute terrorist operations worldwide," Franks said.

Piles of documents and journals discovered outside a home reportedly used by al Qaeda members give out clues
According to sources, the new "super cells" operate on their own without guidance from the men who once trained and directed them. The sources also said the groups have the capability to launch frequent small- and medium-scale attacks -- assassinations, bombings and attacks -- on places where Westerners congregate, such as tourist destinations.

Intelligence analysts said the attack last spring against French naval engineers in Pakistan and another against German tourists in Tunisia that killed 23 people were examples of "super cell" operations.

While these new terrorist groups plan and execute their operations independently, they do have access to a central money source, the same analysts said.

Intelligence sources said a such an organization in Morocco, which was planning attacks against U.S. and British warships in the Strait of Gibraltar, was wired more than $300,000 from supporters in Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

The formation of "super cells" does not mean the end of the threat from the central al Qaeda leadership, which is believed hiding along the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, coalition intelligence sources said.

Intelligence analysts said they think al Qaeda is working to reconstruct its central leadership so it can again launch operations on the scale of the September 11 attacks.
Maybe Clambake and Rummy were wrong about that? Who knows. Certainly not you.

[clambake]

I don't know about Rummy, but I can assure you that al Qaeda was operating in the US before we invaded Iraq.

How can something so simple escape even the simple minded?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't know about Rummy, but I can assure you that al Qaeda was operating in the US before we invaded Iraq.

How can something so simple escape even the simple minded?


Maybe I missed something but didn't atta and the boys learn to fly planes in the US? hadn't they lived in the US for a while prior to 9/11?

[PixelPusher]

I think he's actually trying to argue that if we're contending al Qaeda was in Iraq how could they also have flown jets into the World Trade Center.

That's kind of like arguing there's no way the United States Military can be in Afghanistan, Iraq, The Phillipines, and Somalia and we still see them driving on and off of base at Fort Hood. I guess it just doesn't computer with some people.

Pixel must believe al Qaedans are all physically connected and can't be in multiple places at the same time.

No, that's not at all what I'm trying to contend. You're the one who believes al Qaeda is a finite, singular military force that can be defeated militarily. My point is that "there were a couple of al Qaeda guys running around Iraq" is not an honest justification for invasion. If it were, we should have invaded Pakistan 5 years ago. (yeah, I know...Musharref is an ally, it's a touchy delicate situation in Pakistan, blah-blah-blah)

[George Gervin's Afro]

No, that's not at all what I'm trying to contend. You're the one who believes al Qaeda is a finite, singular military force that can be defeated militarily. My point is that "there were a couple of al Qaeda guys running around Iraq" is not an honest justification for invasion. If it were, we should have invaded Pakistan 5 years ago. (yeah, I know...Musharref is an ally, it's a touchy delicate situation in Pakistan, blah-blah-blah)


Come one pixel you know that one al qaeda guy running around Iraq constitues 'al-qaeda is in Iraq'.. once this has been established you can make that comment over and over again and not technically be lying..

[clambake]

We had a couple a guy's. We should (using Yoni's logic) invade ourselves.

[Yonivore]

Come one pixel you know that one al qaeda guy running around Iraq constitues 'al-qaeda is in Iraq'.. once this has been established you can make that comment over and over again and not technically be lying..
Well, the fact of the matter is, it wasn't just one guy -- but many al Qaedans that followed the #3 al Qaedan in Afghanistan to Iraq.

That's kind of like saying George Patton went to Germany and pretending he didn't take his army with him.

[clambake]

Well, the fact of the matter is, it wasn't just one guy -- but many al Qaedans that followed the #3 al Qaedan in Afghanistan to Iraq.

That's kind of like saying George Patton went to Germany and pretending he didn't take his army with him.
absolute bullshit

[Yonivore]

I see now...

New York Times reporters Michael Gordon and Jim Rutenberg lost no time in following up on the exhortation by new Public Editor Clark Hoyt (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08pubed.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) to attack President Bush's view that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Their article is titled Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13qaeda.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin). Gordon and Rutenberg make no effort to disguise the fact that they are among the "critics."

But, as happens so often we are learning, it is the Times, not President Bush, that can't be relied on for the straight story. In the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/new_york_times_distorts_qaeda.asp), Thomas Joscelyn points out key areas where the Times' account is misleading. Read it all; here are some key paragraphs:


The Times states that when Zarqawi relocated to Iraq he did so "with support from senior Qaeda leaders, American intelligence agencies believe." This directly contradicts what has been reported at various times over the past several years by the New York Times and other media outlets. A common argument that has been made is that Zarqawi wasn't really an al Qaeda operative until 2004, when he swore bayat (loyalty) to bin Laden and was made emir of al Qaeda in Iraq.

There was always evidence tying Zarqawi to al Qaeda (for example, he helped plan attacks with top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah at the turn of the millennium). But it is interesting to see that the intelligence officials quoted in this piece recognize the role that al Qaeda played in supporting Zarqawi’s activities in Iraq all along.

***

[T]he Times muddles the evidence tying Zarqawi to another of his sponsors inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s regime:


"Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian who became the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, came to Iraq in 2002 when Saddam Hussein was still in power, but there is no evidence that Mr. Hussein’s government provided support for Mr. Zarqawi and his followers." (emphasis added)
This is simply not true. The authors may disagree with the notion that the evidence is conclusive, but to say there is "no evidence" is demonstrably false. In this piece (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/334dhoqq.asp) I summarized what three high-level al Qaeda associates (including one who actually recruits jihadis to send to Iraq for suicide bombing missions) had to say about Zarqawi and his associates’ ties to Saddam's regime prior to the war.

The Times ignores another important prewar link between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. The authors state that "Abu Ayyub al-Masri is an Egyptian militant who emerged as the successor of Mr. Zarqawi, who was killed near Baquba in an American airstrike last year." This is correct, but the paper does not bother to report any of al-Masri’s history inside Saddam’s Iraq. Again according to George Tenet (http://thomasjoscelyn.blogspot.com/2007/05/more-than-enough-evidence.html), al-Masri was in Baghdad throughout much of 2002, cooperating with Zarqawi and setting up al Qaeda cells. It is worth remembering that al-Masri was a top aide to al Qaeda's number 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, since 1982! It seems highly unlikely that a top terrorist like al-Masri could operate in Baghdad without Saddam’s tacit approval, at the very least.
I recommend all of Joscelyn's article.

[PixelPusher]

"It seems highly unlikely that a top terrorist like al-Masri could operate in Baghdad without Saddam’s tacit approval, at the very least. "

...and do you extend this tortured logic to President Musharreff? Al Qaeda has made itself nice and comfy in northern Pakistan. Is that "tacit approval" not justification for us to say "to hell with our alliance, If you not with us, your a'gin us! INVADE!"?

[clambake]

"It seems highly unlikely that a top terrorist like al-Masri could operate in Baghdad without Saddam’s tacit approval, at the very least. "

...and do you confer this tortured logic to President Musharreff? Al Qaeda has made itself nice and comfy in northern Pakistan. Is that "tacit approval" not justification for us to say "to hell with our alliance, If you not with us, your a'gin us! INVADE!"?
It means bush is going after al Qaeda, except he's not. There was never any logic used.

[boutons_]

"top terrorist like al-Masri could operate"

if he were in Bagdad, what US-threatening "operations" was he carrying out? any details? no, just fuzzy shit, ratshit that doesn't justify starting a war and 10s of 1000s of US casualties.