Are We Being Manipulated Again?

[TwilightGardener]

The latest Neocon talking point this week is that we must stay in Iraq because Al Qaeda is the main problem, NOT a civil war. My cynical brain says that since most Americans don't think it's a good idea to be involved in the sectarian civil war, and since Al Qaeda is who attacked us on 9/11, it would make perfect sense for the administration (including Joe Lieberman--tool of the administration, and Petraeus, ALSO tool of the administration) to beat this drum in order to make the war, and our soldiers' sacrifice, suddenly more acceptable, and the prospects of ending the war more harmful to us in terms of terrorism. There seems to be a concerted effort this morning--Lieberman's editorial in WaPO, Petraeus, even Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips--to emphasize the resurgent Al Qaeda and the dangers in leaving Iraq to them. This on the very morning of the Senate vote on funding, no less, when average Americans might be paying attention.

I have noticed that most of the attacks against both civilians and our soldiers have been blamed on (or claimed by) Al Qaeda lately. Is this the truth, or is this a new creation by the folks who brought us the tall tales of Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch? Are we getting the Big Sell on this war all over again--now we're back to focusing on Al Qaeda?

On edit: Here's proof--

Two different editorials during the same week, one from Joe Lieberman, and one from Chuck Hagel--they are essentially the yin and yang of the Senate Iraq war debate, and their conclusions about Al Qaeda are very different:

Hagel: We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...


Lieberman: Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

I posted this in Editorials--there seems to be a new battle brewing here about the direction of the war.
Edit to say: Hagel just came back from Iraq--Holy Joe didn't. Who's right?

[MADem]

1. I'll bet alot of those Iraqis with sectarian or tribal ties who are pulling this shit would be

surprised to hear this nonsense!

[Roland99]

2. Oh, absolutely! Well, the media is being manipulated anyway. I've noticed it BIG TIME lately.

More and more articles are sprinkled with Al Qaeda in the headline or the 1st few paragraphs even though we all know that Al Qaeda is largely a boogeyman and that foreign fighters (who are not the same as Al Qaeda, technically) are a very small % of those fighting in Iraq.

But, good thing that the "liberal" media is making those points clear.


:banghead:

[TwilightGardener]

10. But how do we know if Al Qaeda is really responsible for so many

attacks, when it's clearly in the admininstration's interest to minimize the "civil war" aspect of Iraq and play up our Al Qaeda fears? That is my main concern.

[Roland99]

15. Have you seen The Power of Nightmares?

Al Qaeda, itself, is a very small, very tight-knit organization that surrounds bin Laden and al-Zawahiri.

What we're seeing in Iraq is almost entirely sectarian violence. Even US commanders have admitted that foreign fighters are a very small percentage of the "enemy".

Yes, there are myriad Islamist groups probably operating in Iraq now that weren't there before but to blindly call them all Al Qaeda is horribly inaccurate. The vast majority of them do NOT want to attack the US (at least not on our soil here). They want to fight the "near" enemy and setup Islamic states in their own countries.

Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are in a small minority in wanting to fight the US (the "far" enemy) on its own soil.

So, this whole "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is just complete and utter BULLSHIT! Total soundbite crap.

The media eats up anything with "Al Qaeda" in it, though, as it helps spread that sensationalism they need to keep their circulations up. Paper news is withering quickly and we're left with conglomerates like AP and Reuters (and we already know that some top AP execs are big-time Repukes and associated even with some electronic voting systems).

[TwilightGardener]

17. Would this explain why a lot of these groups being blamed

for so much violence are usually said in the media to be "tied" to Al Qaeda? Because I almost never hear anyone straight-up blame Al Qaeda itself. That way, to "Tie" a group to AQ, there is no real way to prove or deny a connection--just gets the words "Al Qaeda" out there for public consumption.

[Roland99]

Bingo! "Tied" "affiliated" "associated" "thought to be"

those are all key words and phrases that have been used more and more these days.


Also, you'll notice those words are used in the headlines or the leader paragraph but when you read further in, you find out the only person who used those words are an unnamed WH official or some schmuck.

[formercia]

19. and the minute we leave Iraq

the locals will kick them out of the country. The only reason they are being tolerated is that they attack Coalition troops.

[Ganja Ninja]

3. I guarantee that if we are still in Iraq on January 22nd 2009 the ...

neocons will flip flop so fast it'll give you whiplash.

[KansDem]

4. If we were truly concerned about al-Qaeda, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia after 9/11

75% of the attackers carried Saudi passports.

Also, OBL requires dialysis yet Bush, with the US's billion-dollar spy network, can't find him (do dialysis machines come on wheels?)

Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq prior to Bush's invasion.

Yes, we are and have been manipulated. It's Bush/US media vs. the American people/world.

[verse18]

5. When did we stop being manipulated? n/t

[windbreeze]

12. Never.....

that manipulation has been going on for at least a couple centuries...why does anyone think they now want to control the internet??? Because the media is controlled...in all forms, and the internet is the only place left where a person just might find the truth if they look hard enough..so the push for control of the internet will continue...

When it comes to 9/11...do we have any proof that what we've been told is true??? I figure all we have is the story they decided to tell us, am I willing to believe what they tell us in this regard when the story is being told by those who have done nothing but lie to us about everything else?..up to us as individuals, as to whether we swallow it hook,line and sinker...or whether we continue to search for answers...
wb

[bigtree]

6. U.S. general: Anbar insurgents mostly Iraqis

January 29, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Most insurgents who are battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq's Anbar province are local Iraqis loyal to al Qaeda, and not foreign fighters, the U.S. commander in the region said . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/29/anbar.security/index.html

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I wish i had the research mojo to find it, but I distinctly remember

a couple years ago, just before the Golden Mosque was blown up, that Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar province were actively fighting the Al Queda foreign fighters, that Sunni and Shia militias were jointly cooperating in attacking US forces - in other words, Iraqis were fighting against all foreign interlopers.

Then the Golden Mosque was destroyed (nobody ever claimed credit for it) and the the Shia and Sunni turned on each other, giving us a breather, for a moment.

I still stay that was a black op.

[TwilightGardener]

13. I was always suspicious of that too, frankly--the military ALWAYS

blames that one mosque bombing for all of the insurgency problems that ensued--never mind the poor execution of the war in general.

[Roland99]

16. I remember that, too. More recently there is this >>>>>>

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-insurgents27mar27,0,4291272.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[TwilightGardener]

20. Informative link, thanks--it seems to say that insurgents have

joined forces to try to marginalize AQ, because they have claimed violent attacks on civilians--but it doesn't say that AQ has a significant presence in Baghdad itself, which Holy Joe asserts (article mentions Anbar, Diyala). Also seems to say that Sunnis and AQ actually work in harmony with each other in some areas--both groups bypass the Shiite government. Might this explain why Sunni attacks on Shia are described as tied to AQ?

[Roland99]

22. Probably so. Al Qaeda elements are Sunni (as is most of Saudi Arabia)

Check out The Power of Nightmares:
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares



Or Jason Burke's Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781850436669&itm=5

[TwilightGardener]

14. Thank you for the link!

[TwilightGardener]

7. delete post

[Arkansas Granny]

8. I think it's another smoke screen. Al Qaeda is undoubtedly

present in Iraq, but I think the civil war presents a much greater problem. For some interesting facts concerning the strength and make up of the insurgency, look at page 22 of the Iraq Index compiled by the Brookings Institution.

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

[TwilightGardener]

9. Excellent link, thank you!

[porphyrian]

18. Again? They stopped? - n/t

[EC]

21. McCain said the same thing on TDS

Lieberman: Indeed, to the extent that last week's bloodshed clarified anything, it is that the battle of Baghdad is increasingly a battle against al-Qaeda. Whether we like it or not, al-Qaeda views the Iraqi capital as a central front of its war against us.


But Jon very nicely, said that al-Qaeda also said they want to bleed us dry of our national treasury...like they did Russia...McCain didn't seem to have an answer...

[TwilightGardener]

23. See what I mean--hate to have my tinfoil hat on, but it seems there

is a new RW effort afoot to shift blame to AQ and away from sectarian violence.