A July 12 Washington Post editorial headlined "Wishful Thinking on Iraq" asserted that U.S. generals in Iraq "believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions." But by claiming that the generals are "encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions," the editorial conflated -- as the Bush administration has done -- the Sunni insurgent group "Al Qaeda in Iraq" with the Osama bin Laden-led group responsible for the 9-11 attacks. As Media Matters for America has noted, "U.S. military and intelligence officials" reportedly "reject[]" the Bush administration's claim that, in President Bush's words, "[t]he same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children" in Iraq. The Post itself reported on the distinction between the two groups in a July 11 article, a distinction ignored by the Post's editorial writer.

From the July 11 Post article:

In his speech, Bush once again conflated two organizations, al-Qaeda in Iraq and the international network led by Osama bin Laden, saying that the same group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, is responsible for much of the violence in Iraq. While the Iraq militants are inspired by bin Laden, intelligence analysts say the Iraqi group is composed overwhelmingly of Iraqis and does not take direction from bin Laden.

The Post editorial claimed that just like Bush, "advocates for withdrawal" from Iraq are engaging in "wishful thinking" because of the numerous "risks of withdrawal" including "full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide." The editorial argued that "[b]efore Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawals [from Iraq], it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope" because they "believe they are making fitful progress in calming Baghdad, training the Iraqi army and encouraging anti-al-Qaeda coalitions."

But the editorial did not explain which "al-Qaeda" group it was referring to. A June 28 McClatchy Newspapers article reported that "U.S. military and intelligence officials ... say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops" and that "[t]he group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides." Moreover, describing the enemy in Iraq as "Al Qaeda" echoes a rhetorical strategy adopted by the Bush administration and noted by New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt in his July 8 column: "As domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda." Hoyt wrote that this strategy has "political advantages" because the group "is an enemy Americans understand."

Other major news outlets have also recently noted the distinction between the two groups. For example, on July 11, the Los Angeles Times devoted an article to Bush's conflation of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq:

By describing the U.S. effort in Iraq largely as a struggle against Al Qaeda, President Bush on Tuesday reached for a familiar -- but widely questioned -- way of defining the war.

[...]

Insurgents affiliated with the group that calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq have been involved in many attacks in that country. But the CIA, Pentagon and other experts have debated the group's role in Iraq and its ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The June 28 McClatchy article noted that Bush's description of Al Qaeda as "the main enemy" in Iraq was "rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts":

Facing eroding support for his Iraq policy, even among Republicans, President Bush on Thursday called al Qaida "the main enemy" in Iraq, an assertion rejected by his administration's senior intelligence analysts.

The reference, in a major speech at the Naval War College that referred to al Qaida at least 27 times, seemed calculated to use lingering outrage over the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to bolster support for the current buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, despite evidence that sending more troops hasn't reduced the violence or sped Iraqi government action on key issues.

Bush called al Qaida in Iraq the perpetrator of the worst violence racking that country and said it was the same group that had carried out the Sept. 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

[...]

U.S. military and intelligence officials, however, say that Iraqis with ties to al Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al Qaida in Iraq didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't pledge its loyalty to al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden until October 2004 and isn't controlled by bin Laden or his top aides.

Yesterday, Thomas Fingar, the top intelligence analyst in the Office of the National Intelligence Director, stated that “the most optimistic” assessment of the increase in troop numbers in Iraq is that it has not had a “significant” effect in reducing the violence:

The surge that began a few months ago is having an effect, it has not yet had a sufficient effect on the violence, in my judgment, to move the country to a place that the serious obstacles to reconciliation can be overcome.

The most optimistic projection is that it will be difficult and time-consuming to bridge the political gulf when violence levels are reduced, and they have not yet been reduced significantly.

This morning on Fox and Friends, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol ignored the intelligence assessment, instead offering his unfounded view that the “military situation is better than anyone expected”:

The truth is if you look concretely on the ground in Iraq, the military situation is better than anyone expected. Better than David Petraeus expected. Better than those of us here at home who supported the surge expected six months ago. … And we’re going to win the war. I think we’re going to win this war if we just don’t lose our nerve here at home.

Watch a compilation:

Kristol concluded that if Bush can hold off Congress, “I think Gen. David Petraeus could go down in American history with an amazing performance. … This could be a Ulysses S. Grant situation where Bush finally found the right general.”

A Reuters photographer yesterday took a picture of President Bush’s speech welcoming journalists to the new White House briefing room. As On Deadline notes, “As you can see, the speech has been marked up and includes a large ‘X’ through this section: ‘And there’s no truth to the rumor some of those new seats can be ejected by pressing a button at Tony’s podium.’”

Roll Call reports, “As the Senate Appropriations Committee prepares today to take up the financial services and general government spending bill, Republicans on and off the panel are expected to vigorously oppose a Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) provision that prohibits funding for the Office of the Vice President until Cheney complies with an executive order issued by former President Bill Clinton and renewed by President Bush.”

Last November, CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Iraq Study Group in a private briefing that the “inability of the [Iraqi] government to govern seems irreversible.” In the eight months since, “neither Hayden nor any other high-ranking administration official has publicly described the Iraqi government in the uniformly negative terms that the CIA director used in his closed-door briefing.”

“A previously undisclosed Army investigation into an audacious January attack in Karbala that killed five U.S. soldiers concludes that Iraqi police working alongside American troops colluded with insurgents.”

“Undercover Congressional investigators set up a bogus company and obtained a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in March that would have allowed them to buy the radioactive materials needed for a so-called dirty bomb,” demonstrating once again that the security measures “to prevent radioactive materials from getting into the wrong hands are insufficient.”

If “current greenhouse gas emission patterns worldwide continue unabated,” summers in the Northeast could be six to 14 degrees warmer and “cities such as Boston, Atlantic City and New York would be regularly subject to disastrous flooding,” according to a new report.

Some conservatives are rallying behind a weak amendment offered by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-CO) to implement the Iraq Study Group recommendations, rather than set a deadline for withdrawal. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) derided the proposal as having “less teeth than a toothless tiger. It won’t change one thing the president does.” (more…)