Replies

This is nothing more than anti-Bush spin, courtesy of the Washington Post and waterboy John Galt. Let's view three key segments:

"Vice President Dick Cheney told National Public Radio in January that there was ''overwhelming evidence'' of a relationship between Hussein and al Qaeda. Among the evidence he cited was Iraq's harboring of Abdul Rahman Yasin, a suspect in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing."

Note that the VP said "evidence," not "proof." Intelligent people understand the difference. Honest people understand that protecting national security doesn't always allow the luxury of waiting for "proof." We must often act on the basis of evidence.

"Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Hussein's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings."

The misrepresentation and contradiction contained here screams out at the reader. The misrepresentation occurs when the WP writers use the term "in league" as a synonym of Vice President Cheney's term "relationship." These terms are not synonymous.

The contradiction lies in how the writers report "no relationship" on one hand, while suggesting there were "occasional meetings" on the other. Both assertions cannot be true at the same time.

''We could find no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda,'' a senior U.S. official acknowledged.

Again, the key word here is "provable." No serious person can doubt the symbiotic relationship between Saddam's regime and Al Qaida.

This is not serious journalism but merely another example of the WP -- and John Galt -- running interference for John Kerry and the left.

Professor Kantorek weighs in to parse words.

Brilliant defense.

But I am not interested in the past, I am interested in the alliance between the liberal media and the intelligence community to undermine the administration and the need for a remedy that will satisfy the intelligence community so they will stop waging war in the print media.

Please note this post and its final paragraph, azhenfud:

This is not serious journalism but merely another example of the WP -- and John Galt -- running interference for John Kerry and the left.