Is it Al Qaeda or is it Memorex?

The other day, President Bush received criticism about a speech about Iraq at the Naval War College where he used the phrase Al Qaeda 23 times. This comes on the back of a broader criticism that the US administration and military leadership is now framing all violence in Iraq as coming solely from Al Qaeda.

That's why I found this interesting.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that the U.S. has no "hard evidence" that the Sunni Muslim insurgent group al Qaida in Iraq was responsible for the recent bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, although Bush administration officials cite the attack as proof that al Qaida in Iraq is stoking sectarian violence.

It "seems to me that that's probably an analytical conclusion. I'm not sure whether they have a lot of hard evidence about it," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

Frankly, I'm willing to go along with that "analytical conclusion," but I find it very interesting that Robert Gates is not.

As it appears that Al Qaeda is the new administration "talking point" source for all violence in Iraq, even being repeated by Petraeus and Odierno the generals beneath Gates, what does it mean that Gates is unwilling to join in?

He similarly refused to endorse the "analytical conclusion" that Iran was the source of all violence just two months ago. I just find it interesting that Gates is so careful in confirming the assertions that the rest seem so anxious to make.

(And, what happened to "Iran as the source of all problems?" They haven't changed their behavior at all. The only difference I see is that military operations are now focusing on the Sunnis again.)