Al Qaeda in Iraq

National Public Radio ^ | Jan. 12, 2006 | Peter Bergen

[rubired]

Excerpt from interview with Peter Bergen, author of "The Osama Bin Laden I know: Inside the secret world of Osama Bin Laden" by Frank Stasio on National Public Radio.

Peter Bergen: "(Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden) had sort of philisophical differences and they competed for money ... they really only came together as the Iraq war heated up and Zarqawi never swore an oath of allegiance to Bin Laden until 2004, two years into the war. So, Colin Powell had, at his famous U.N. presentation, said Zarqawi was the best evidence for this sort of Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein nexus. Well I just think that's nonsense and in fact I'm sure Colin Powell is regretting some of the statements he made there because the evidence shows that Zarqawi had a competitive relationship with Al Qaeda and it's only recently that he's entered into this spirit of cooperation and finally changed the name of his organization to Al Qaeda in Iraq and finally swore his allegiance to Bin Laden." ... Peter Bergen: "Saddam Hussein didn't tolerate dissent of any kind. He wouldn't have wanted an opposition group, whether it's called Al Qaeda or whatever the name of the group, he was a totalitarian dictator." ... Peter Bergen: (reads a paragraph from his book "The Osama Bin Laden I know: Inside the world of Osama Bin Laden)" "The United States war in Iraq has energized Al Qaeda, its affiliated groups and like-minded jihadists around the world. What has happened in Iraq is what Bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams. The United States invaded an oil-rich muslim nation in the heart of the middle east, the very type of imperial adventure that Bin Laden has long predicted is the 'crusaders' longterm goal in the region."

[rubired]

If: 911 = Pearl Harbor

Al Qaeda = Japan

Saddam Hussein = Joseph Stalin

Bush = Roosevelt

then a question: How come Roosevelt didn't invade the Soviet Union?

[piasa]

Get a load of this- Peter Bergen finally has to deal with the fact that al Qaida was in Iraq well before 9/11... he can't deny that Zarqawi was there. So instead the flaming lefties have contorted this all around to cover their errors by claiming that Zarqawi wasn't "really" al Qaeda at the time. ;-)

Peter Bergen: "(Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama Bin Laden) had sort of philisophical differences and they competed for money ... they really only came together as the Iraq war heated up and Zarqawi never swore an oath of allegiance to Bin Laden until 2004, two years into the war. So, Colin Powell had, at his famous U.N. presentation, said Zarqawi was the best evidence for this sort of Al Qaeda/Saddam Hussein nexus. Well I just think that's nonsense and in fact I'm sure Colin Powell is regretting some of the statements he made there because the evidence shows that Zarqawi had a competitive relationship with Al Qaeda and it's only recently that he's entered into this spirit of cooperation and finally changed the name of his organization to Al Qaeda in Iraq and finally swore his allegiance to Bin Laden."

[piasa]

One of Bergen's other theories:

* Peter Bergen [tries to trash the Hikmat Shakir connection between Iraq & al Qaeda] : "Shakir is a pretty common name," said terrorism analyst and author Peter Bergen, "and even if the two names refer to the same person, there might be a number of other explanations. Perhaps al-Qaida had penetrated Saddam's security apparatus." -------- "Cheney is holding the (terrorist) cards: 9/11 panel: New evidence on Iraq-Al-Qaida ," By Shaun Waterman, UPI Homeland and National Security Editor , Published 6/20/2004 5:27 PM , http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040620-050700-2315r

[piasa]

How come Roosevelt didn't invade the Soviet Union?

Ever heard the old saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

[piasa]

How come Roosevelt didn't invade the Soviet Union?

Roosevelt and Stalin were both Progressives. ;-D

[rubired]

Of course I have. That's my point. IF saddam didn't support or cooperate with Al Qaeda (and on this point the jury is still very much out) then he wasn't as big of a threat as Osama & co. In that case, either Bush et. al. ignored one of the oldest wisdoms in warfare OR the whole comparison between WWII and the war on terrorism is flawed. Too many differences to be worthwhile.

[Fedora]

Thanks for the ping!

[MikefromOhio]

IF saddam didn't support or cooperate with Al Qaeda (and on this point the jury is still very much out) then he wasn't as big of a threat as Osama & co.

The Jury most assurdedly is NOT out on that. Al Zarqawi was in Iraq well before the Iraq invasion.....