Comments on: Responding to IDA Report of Saddam’s Ties to Terrorism. Saddam was training suicide bombers… to attack Kurds/Iran. Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it. Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:53:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: mark eichenlaub Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:53:54 +0000 Mugsy,
al Qaeda has had its main base in Afghanistan crushed and has also had members killed/captured in Europe, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabi, etc. I never said for sure that I knew they were bigger or smaller now but they are being hunted in more countries than just Iraq.

Your straw man of me saying that al Qaeda is smaller because of our invasion is another example of you putting words in my mouth that I never said. Do you keep doing that on purpose?

By: mark eichenlaub Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:47:39 +0000 Just because you hear people saying al Qaeda is bigger now over and over does not make it so Mugsy. You know better. Support your statement with numbers, links, stats, please.

By: mark eichenlaub Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:46:09 +0000 Mugsy…again putting words in my mouth. I never said al Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq pre invasion. I said the opposite. I also don’t play semantics games about their names pre invasion.

Regarding al Qaeda’s size pre vs. post invasion it’s funny that Zawahiri yesterday was complaining about al Qaeda being weakened and not having Muslim support while Mugsy talks about the group growing in size because of the invasion of Iraq.

Also Mugsy. Name ONE member of al Qaeda who joined up because of the invasion of Iraq that wasn’t already furious because of the invasion of Afghanistan. These are serious questions and just saying “go to global security” isn’t gonna cut it. That place has thousands of articles and documents. How about a specific link?

By: Mugsy Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:29:52 +0000 In case anyone hasn’t figured it out, Mark is the “YouTube friend” that posted the initial comment I refer to in this blog entry.

Re: #3, officials claiming AQ is “weaker” is not a description of “size”. As Bush lackies, they have always furthered the idea that Bush’s “War on Terror” has had a net positive effect, basing that conclusion on pure opinion and speculation even when presented with evidence and facts that prove otherwise.

Mark has conceded that AQI (al Qaeda in Iraq) did not exist prior to the invasion of Iraq, YET insists that al Qaeda is *smaller* today than before the invasion of Iraq. If you can reconcile that conclusion, you are more clever than I.

As for citing reports/sources that say al Qaeda is larger and a greater threat today than before the invasion, I leave that to readers of this blog. The list would be too long for inclusion here, and beside providing Mark with a link to “”, as well as citing the “9/11 Report”, and quoting Mark himself, he is still insisting I have not backed up my claims with links/sources. So as you might expect, this conversation ended no further along than when it started. Call me foolish for even entertaining it.

By: mark eichenlaub Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:24:41 +0000 Also, the debates between AQI and al Qaeda and Pakistan is a worthy one. Dismissing the possibility of any connection at all isn’t something serious people do.

By: mark eichenlaub Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:23:16 +0000 Let’s see McConnell, Hayden and every official on record says al Qaeda has been weakened since 9-11 but is still strong and I am wrong for not agreeing that it is “common knowledge” that they are bigger? Who is not following events?

Read the transcripts of what people say and stop relying on what left wing blogs pull as soundbytes.

I still hold open the ability to debate but you have yet to provide any links backing up anything you say and somehow say that it’s my responsibility to document my claims (and I did) and you can just say “everyone knows x, y, z” and I have to accept your faulty premises. They aren’t facts. They are conventional wisdom of the circles you travel in and I encourage you to really read up on people who know al Qaeda and don’t have political axes to grind….

Even start with Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin who both oppose the war and were in Clinton’s NSC. Your fundamental view of the size, goals and nature of al Qaeda are so different from those I have talked to and read from who (Ranstrop, the Counterterrorism blog, Simon and Benjamin, Bergen, Gunaratna, Lawrence Wright) and almost NONE of those guys support the invasion but have a far different view of al Qaeda than you do.

When you are ready to cite some documents, books or experts on al Qaeda I’d be happy to get into it more but you’ve done nothing other than repeat false conventional wisdoms and then shake your head in disbelief when I ask you where you found it.