Why Experts Put The Lie To Bush's New Claim That All Iraq Violence Is Fault of Al Qaeda

As NBC News nicely detailed tonight, Bush's claim today that Al Qaeda - the choice bogeyman of this administration since Year 2000 - is responsible for the violence in Iraq and not civil war simply is not true. His own people prove it.

First up is General John Abizaid who told Congress about two weeks ago that Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq, amounting to no more than 2% or so of all activity or about 1,300 "fighters". Did Abizaid lie?

Next, on November 20, William Caldwell (I believe) of CentCom said in a press op that American forces had arrested almost all true Al Qaeda forces in Iraq, rendering them incapable of any significant efforts there whatsoever. Did Caldwell and CentCom lie?

Many terrorism experts have told us again and again that Al Qaeda had virtually NO base in Iraq before we invaded the country and only minimal activity in there since. Are they lying?

Or, more likely, did George Bush simply decide today to pull out that ever so convenient bogeyman: formerly Osama Bin Laden (except we didn't get him IF we ever tried since the Bushies and the bin Ladens are ever soooo close) and now Al Qaeda?

In other words, did our president lie?

Through his ugly teeth.