You mean like the one in the URL?

David

Close, but not quite, David. The AP story you link to never makes explicit the point I'm looking for.

very funny I was thinking myself what convoluted bullshit could some moonbat, I mean Seatle PI or LA Times, OpEd writer come up with? That would be one of them.

I think this Maureen Dowd (who else?) column comes pretty close:

"the Bush team that hyped the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq has now created an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq."

Plus, I should get bonus points for where I found her column posted. Then there's this op-ed piece in Lebanon's Daily Star positing that the Iraq war had created new connections between Shiite and Sunni extremists. Money quote:

This all sounds remarkably like the Bush administration’s efforts to link Al-Qaeda with Saddam Hussein as a justification for invading Iraq.
That premise proved to be totally false ­ although, if the Americans are to be believed, Al-Qaeda activists are now joining the Iraqi resistance to US occupation.

Finally, some guy named Stephen Senise of the Brisbane Institute has an op-ed that claims:

Added to American problems are indications that the resistance which the Sunni-Ba'athist loyalists are spearheading seem to be overlapping with imported Wahabi operations of the Al-Qaeda variety. Here it is important to digress to make the point that Powell's famously described "nexus" or "convergence" of Ba'athist and Al-Qaeda co-operation seems to have finally come into focus. Unfortunately for American credibility and security, it has only occurred after the American invasion of Iraq provided the catalyst.

This isn't really a media outlet, so far as I can tell, but that looks to take the cake.

Here you are-

From The Hundustan Times:

British officials said they have also reasons to believe that at least 1,000 Al-Qaeda elements and its sympathisers have already moved into Iraq and helping out supporters of ousted President Saddam Hussein in fighting the US-led forces.

Can you put some vodka in that mug?

-Joe

And another one:

'We are looking at three categories of group involved in the resistance,' said one official. 'There are ex-Baathists, especially in the Sunni triangle [where the majority of Special Republican guard and members of Saddam's security organisations were traditionally recruited from]. Then there are groups like Ansar al-Islam and groups that may be affiliated to al Qaeda or sympathetic to them. Finally, there are foreign jihadists who have been drawn to Iraq to fight Americans.'

...

Most worrying of all is the emergence of a broad, post-Saddam ideology across the groups. And if recent polling in Baghdad is to be believed, it is rapidly gaining currency with ordinary Iraqis. It is crudely simple, insisting that the US-led occupation is an assault against both Islam and the wider Arab nation, that Iraqis must resist and that anyone who assists the occupiers is an enemy as much as US troops.

This one is from The Observer.

-Joe

Screwed up that link to The Hindustan Times. Sorry.

-Joe

From Dar Al Hayat Nov 7 2003 (Saudi Arabia):

We know that amongst the consequences of the war on Iraq, is the alliance between the likes of Al Qaeda and its divisions and those of the ousted Baath Party.

How about href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=%2Fuclicktext%2F20031112%2Fcm_ucru%2Fwhywefight">this?

You are joining a broad and diverse coalition dedicated to one principle: Iraq for Iraqis. Our leaders include generals of President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s secular government as well as fundamentalist Islamists. We are Sunni and Shia, Iraqi and foreign, Arab and Kurdish. Though we differ on what kind of future our country should have after liberation and many of us suffered under Saddam, we are fighting side by side because there is no dignity under the brutal and oppressive jackboot of the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority or their Vichyite lapdogs on the Governing Council, headed by embezzler Ahmed Chalabi.