Comments on: Was al-Libbi Al Qaeda’s Number Three?

By: Joe Tucker

Joe Tucker — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:32:56 +0000

As of today, Monday, it appears that this story has still gone nowhere. On Sunday, all the morning political shows mentioned the capture of Al-Liby but none mentioned the Time Of London article or suggestion there was any question or would be further scrutiny of Al Liby's actual station within the Al Qaeda organization.

By: PAXALLES

PAXALLES — Mon, 09 May 2005 02:18:41 +0000

Deck of Cards Mismarked - No Slime-Dunk With Al Libbi?

Deck of Cards Mismarked - No Slime-Dunk With Al Libbi

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 09 May 2005 00:58:56 +0000

Your right about releasing to the media before even the incidental facts are solid. There is enough justifiable bad press. To give more due to negligence definitely justifies your word Buffoons.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Mon, 09 May 2005 00:50:26 +0000

Paul: The question isn't whether capturing the guy was a good thing; obviously, it was. The question is why he is being touted as the #3 guy if he's not that. If he is "merely" a well-connected mid-level guy, he could be a big catch. But it makes us look like buffoons if we issue false reports.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 09 May 2005 00:46:06 +0000

Excellent, let us all just forget for a moment, that none of the 9-11 hijackers were in Al Qaida's top three. I'm curious on Sept 10, 2001 if you were in charge, would you have been more interested in a name Laden, or Atta?

By: 403 Forbidden

403 Forbidden — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

. Now, this seems to be as important, if not even more important than when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed (now that was the media at it's best). Why does the American media tell us each time the "number three man" in Al Qaeda is captured or killed but when the head of the other incredibly ruthless terrorist group in Iraq is captured, we hear nothing? Well, that's because Ansar al Sunnah doesn't have the same ring as "Al Qaeda" in Iraq