Qaeda Said What?
Hoyt and Nance minimize al-Qaeda. Roggio minimizes Hoyt and Nance.
Roggio has a sneaker party all over Nance, doesn’t get into Hoyt. Re Hoyt, all I have to say is this is a precious line coming from the New York Times:
Military experts will tell you that failing to understand your enemy is a prescription for broader failure.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:20 pm on Saturday, July 14, 2007
7 Responses to “Qaeda Said What?”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hey, great!
We dont even know who we’re fighting over there.
Sounds about right.
No wonder Maliki asked us to get out of his country today.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:01 am
They understand THEIR enemy quite well. His name is George Bush.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Part of Time Magazine’s resident left lobe sludge factory Joe Klein is also pushing a similar phantom al Qaeda theory. I was reading these same Murtha inspired conspiracy theories on nutroot blogs three months ago and it must have finally seeped into Joe Klein’s fetid consciousness.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1642884,00.html
He says Bush has been “lying for four years” about who al Qaeda really is Iraq and yet Klein’s definition of al Qaeda is as tendential as can be. Joe say Bush is doing “outrageous spin” then Joe spins in retaliation. He’s not a journalist. He’s a carney funhouse operator. It’s enough to make you puke.
In one “realist” article, Joe Klein suggested WE, the USA, should “forget about Hariri’s assassination” and make nice with Assad. What an f-king amoral sack of shit. If only people like Joe Klein and Jim Baker could find themselves in a room with real Lebanese who suffered under the tyranny of Assad and his father and there they would be forced to read their policy papers and defend them.
The Irony is the “Bush Doctrine” towers over the filth that Joe Klein gets paid to put to page and hardly anyone gets it. As VDH describes it in part: “It was a bold attempt to break with the West’s previous practices, both liberal (appeasement of terrorists) and conservative (doing business with Saddam, selling arms to Iran, and overlooking the House of Saud’s funding of terrorists).”
Klein, it seems, is always full of bad ideas and advice. He spent an entire article looking down from on high at the car wreck of Joe Lieberman’s life and “his convictions”—‘what a sad waste’. Right Joe. What a waste. What are your convictions Joe Klein?
July 15th, 2007 at 3:49 am
I am thankful for those courageous bloggers who go into the theater of war on their own dime and contributions from readers. With rare exceptions, they are the only ones who have endeavored to keep the American public informed in a time of war. The MSM have shown themselves to be craven quislings, feeding the worst element in the country, at the expense of the boots on the ground and the presidency.
Note I said the presidency, not just this president; in practice and in reality, the attacks are not merely against George Bush, but the very nature of the checks and balances that have stood us so well for over 200 years. We now have the obscenity of a Congress attempting to micromanage a war in true democratic fashion–by the rule of polls and the mob, with most of the media and the so-called intelligentsia playing cheerleader.
Roggio delivers a true tour-de-force, and I thank him for his efforts.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am
The nut side of the leftosphere can’t even agree among themselves. The July 8 New York Times editorial “The Road Home” says:
“Despite President Bush’s repeated claims, Al Qaeda had no significant foothold in Iraq before the invasion, which gave it new base camps, new recruits and new prestige.
So which is it? Al Qaeda has no significant presence in Iraq (despite the obvious fact that our troops have killed more of their leaders there than anywhere else), or they have “new base camps, new recruits, and new prestige”? Is Sheikh Zawahiri wrong when he says Iraq is the main front in the Islamist war against the west? Surely Bushhitler is not putting words in his mouth? And lest we forget, surely Ansar al-Islam would have had no dealings with al-Qaeda before the war, such as sharing intelligence, arms, and funds in pursuit of a strategic goal. Never in a million years would Saddam, that sweet old secularist kite-flyer, have attempted to use al-Qaeda to further his own expansionist dreams, right?
[/sarcasm for the irony-impaired]
July 15th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
The pathetic part is that those departments of government who are supposedly the experts in this, and I’ll expressly mention the State Department here, aren’t any better than ignorant or willfully blind pretentious pundits. Never was a place more aptly nicknamed than those at Foggy Bottom.
July 16th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Nance’s credentials appear to be above reproach. On the surface, he would appear more qualified to explain and define Iraq’s insurgency than Roggio.
Nance did have some valuable information, insights and perspective but on the whole he showed a very troubling, almost Michael Ware-like bias against the current administration. He does give credit to Petreaus or more specifically Kilcullen at the end but by slamming the administration he is also slamming them. As Roggio points out, the administration is merely restating what Petreaus has said.
The near total exclusion of the Mahdi Army and Shi’ite militias is very odd. As Roggio says, this administration has talked incessantly about their threat. To state otherwise is an intentionally misleading statement. . “It’s all AQI all the time” that’s pure bull. What agenda Nance has is hard to say. Book sales?
Hoyt also conveniently ignores the Shi’ite militia threats assessments made by people like Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, the spokesman for Multinational Forces Iraq. Just another veteran leftist NYT reporter muddying up the water with half-truths and lies.
I too am very thankful for individuals like Bill Roggio who can calmly point out “errors” in a colleague’s work.