Deliberate deception on the part of Reuters or not?

Yahoo News ^ | 6/21/2004 | agitate

[Agitate]

Am I reading this right?

These paragraphs are from a Reuter’s on Yahoo news:

"The conclusion of the commission staff report, released last Wednesday, contradicted Bush administration contentions before and after the U.S.-led war on Iraq. The president argued a connection with al Qaeda constituted an unacceptable threat to the United States.

"Some officials, including Cheney, suggested an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks. Bush later ruled out that possibility, but many Americans still believe it and critics have accused the administration of misleading the public."

Is it just me or do they ring with untruth? For instance, how exactly did the 911 commission “contradict” the “Bush administration contentions?”

They also imply that the president’s reason for going to war with Iraq was an al Qaeda connection. Did the president ever present this as a reason for Iraq? If not, isn’t this, at best, pure sophistry from Reuters?

The next paragraph says that Cheney “suggested” Iraq was behind 9-11 and that Bush agreed until “later.” Did Cheney ever say this?

I just want to make sure I’m right before I send this out to my friends with a rant as an example of the biased left-wing media attempts to influence the election. All relevant links are most welcome.

[Agitate]

Recommended Reading:

LittleGreenFootballs -- Protest Warrior!
The command post -- Instapundit
Apostate Witness
FaithFreedom.org - The Voice of Muslim Dissidents
Iraq the Model -- Healing Iraq
Who's killing the children of Iraq?
Interview with the Band -- The Facts Stand Alone

[BenLurkin]

bttt

[jmaroneps37]

Its not you. This is ratmedia lying at it's worst.

[Mister Baredog]

I just want to make sure I’m right before I send this out to my friends with a rant as an example of the biased left-wing media attempts to influence the election. All relevant links are most welcome.

You're right. They "buy ink by the barrel" and have no problem with their own bias, that much is obvious.

RANT ON FReeper.

[lilylangtree]

Absolute deliberate deception on all mainstream media. Remember the 911 commission stated that they had NO credible information, with "credible" being the operative word. Who determines what's "credible"? Also, the 911 commission was very partisan and wanted to hang the Bush Administration out to dry for the events of 911, publicly and judicially. But they couldn't even if they go after Condi Rice for additional info like the media announced last week before issuing a final report. And the members of the 911 commission REFUSED to condemn the clintoonian administration of misdeeds even after reports indicate that 911 planning and orchestration occurred under clintoon's watch.

[Brilliant]

It's another fine example of commentary disguised as news. The liberal media cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

[DakotaGator]

Wish I could direct you to a definitive site.

As far as I know, Reuters is repeating "the big lie". Maybe we should shift the burden and publicly demand Reuters document its specific allegations.

[Always Right]

The White House never suggested Saddam-911 connection, and the report did not contradict anything the white house said. The media went beyond spin and flat out lied on this story.

[Agitate]

You're right. They "buy ink by the barrel" and have no problem with their own bias, that much is obvious.

RANT ON FReeper.

Rant will be going out tonight after work. I am also going to write Reuters, yahoo, or whoever's responsible. This is really sickening.

[Agitate]

As far as I know, Reuters is repeating "the big lie". Maybe we should shift the burden and publicly demand Reuters document its specific allegations.

Sounds like a good idea to me. If someone has addresses that'd be great, I'm trying to locate one between work. I'm sure they tried to hid it well.

[sheik yerbouty]

"rats! call the Orkin Man!

[hermgem]

Truth?
As long as there are ongoing repeats, a lie gets accepted as truth.
The media knows this, but in their zeal to destroy Bush everything goes.
How political this commission acts is shown by the fact that prior to a release of their report the N.Y.Times has an early version and immediately crafts conclusions around this pre-release.
Other news organizations with insufficient time prior to deadlines accept and pass along such crafted spin by a staunchly partisan N.Y.T. organisation.

[Jim_Curtis]

Reuters is horrible at playing along smartly with the deception game that the Times and others have set up. They weren't supposed to put in writing what was only to be "implied until believed" and that would be the false charge that "Bush claimed Saddam was in cahoots with bin Laden to plan the 9/11 attacks."

I caught an earful of some lib actually using as a defense for all this "most people believe this is the case so where did they get that idea?"

[bondjamesbond]

Actually, the NYTimes came clean in Sunday's "Week In Review" section.

What the Bush Administration Said

Click through to the links. You know that if the NYTimes could have come up with a direct quote, they would have...

Long story short, nobody in the Administration blamed Iraq for 9/11, before or after the war.

[Agitate]

Thanks everybody!