The NY Times is so busted...B U S T E D...
Posted on 06/25/2004 6:29:03 PM PDT by RWR8189
The New York Times can't decide whether or not there's a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Here is the New York Times, editorializing in high dudgeon on June 17:
Now President Bush should apologize to the American people. . . . Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. . . . Mr. Bush and his top advisers . . . should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Here are excerpts from a front-page article by Thom Shanker in the New York Times one week later, on June 25:
Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq. . . .
The new document, which appears to have circulated only since April, was provided to the New York Times several weeks ago. . . .
A translation of the new Iraqi document was reviewed by a Pentagon working group in the spring . . .
The task force concluded that the document "appeared authentic," and that it "corroborates and expands on previous reporting" about contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan, according to the task force's analysis. . . .
The document, which asserts that Mr. bin Laden "was approached by our side," states that Mr. bin Laden previously "had some reservations about being labeled an Iraqi operative," but was now willing to meet in Sudan, and that "presidential approval" was granted to the Iraqi security service to proceed. . . .
The document is of interest to American officials as a detailed, if limited, snapshot of communications between Iraqi intelligence and Mr. bin Laden, but this view ends with Mr. bin Laden's departure from Sudan. At that point, Iraqi intelligence officers began "seeking other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location," the document states.
Members of the Pentagon task force that reviewed the document said it described no formal alliance being reached between Mr. bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence. The Iraqi document itself states that "co-operation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement." . . .
The Iraqi document states that Mr. bin Laden's organization in Sudan was called "The Advice and Reform Commission." The Iraqis were cued to make their approach to Mr. bin Laden in 1994 after a Sudanese official visited Uday Hussein, the leader's son, as well as the director of Iraqi intelligence, and indicated that Mr. bin Laden was willing to meet in Sudan.
A former director of operations for Iraqi intelligence Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, the document states.
So much for "no link between Iraq and al Qaeda." So much for the claim of the Times editorial, and of its page-one headline the same day mischaracterizing the 9/11 Commission staff report. We look forward to the editors' apology.
More important, we look forward to the Bush administration seriously and relentlessly engaging the debate over the Saddam-al Qaeda terror connection. We hope we do not wait in vain.
Vice President Cheney did sally forth last week, the day after the release of the 9/11 Commission staff report. But he hasn't much followed up since then, and others have been mostly silent. Does the Bush team really think it can command majority support for the war in Iraq if it allows its opponents an uncontested field to make the case that Saddam had no significant links to terrorists?
After all, the situation on the ground in Iraq is likely to remain ambiguous over the next few months. So simply depending on things to turn out well after the June 30 turnover of power is, to say the least, politically risky. Large caches of weapons of mass destruction are unlikely to turn up soon. This does not mean Saddam's history of concealing his weapons programs from inspectors was not a solid ground for his removal. But it does mean that the WMD issue is not a likely winner for the administration.
The terror link issue, by contrast, should be a clear winner. Saddam and Osama had a "relationship" in the past, and sought continuing "cooperation" between their two "organizations." Could the president of the United States have simply left Saddam in power, with sanctions coming off, reconstituting his weapons programs, confident that Saddam and al Qaeda would not work together again in the future? Would this have been a reasonable course of action?
This is a genuinely important debate for the country to have in this election year. It is a good debate for the Bush administration--if it has the wit and the nerve to engage it.
--William Kristol
The NY Times is so busted...B U S T E D...
I'm beginning to think that the "W" stands for Waldo.
'Could the president of the United States have simply left Saddam in power, with sanctions coming off, reconstituting his weapons programs, confident that Saddam and al Qaeda would not work together again in the future? Would this have been a reasonable course of action?'
I want to hear this loud and clear...it is well-expressed just this way.
Excerpt from Dick Cheney invterview on FOX News today:
CAVUTO: Right. Yesterday, Al Gore was speaking on Iraq, Mr. Vice President. And he had said that you and the president were perpetuating an artful and important lie about leaks between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to justify the war in Iraq. What do you say?
CHENEY: Well, Al Gore I don't think has looked very carefully at the evidence here. I didn't see his speech. I had just seen some press commentary on it.
I think the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein was an evil man. He ran one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century. He had produced and used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He had provided a safe haven for terrorists.
The Abu Nidal organization was headquartered in Baghdad. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad used to operate out of there. He had an established relationship with al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission members say, yes, they did find evidence of links. Not to 9/11, but links between Iraq and al Qaeda.
CAVUTO: So, in your eyes, as well there is an unmistakable link between Al Qaeda and Iraq?
CHENEY: Absolutely.
CAVUTO: That seems to be — the vice president (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and John Kerry has been saying that has not been proven.
CHENEY: Well, they're wrong. And the fact is, if you go look at George Tenet's testimony before the Senate intel committee in the fall of '02, he talks about a relationship going back 10 years, to the early '90s.
There's a story on the front page of The New York Times this morning that talks about a link between Iraq and al Qaeda when Saddam Hussein was operating in the Sudan, which he did for many years before and moved to Afghanistan. We have the whole case of Zarqawi, who is today probably the biggest terrorist operating in Iraq, and the ongoing conflict there.
He originally was Jordanian. He was an associate, an al Qaeda associate. He was operating training camps in Afghanistan. He fled to Baghdad after we took Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein knew he was in Baghdad because we arranged to have that information passed to — to a third country intelligence service. In Baghdad, he ran the poisons facility, largest poisons facility we've ever found that al Qaeda was operating up in northeastern Iraq. He had about two dozen associates with him in Baghdad from an outfit called Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which had merged with al Qaeda.
Zawahiri, who's bin Laden's number two, used to run the EIJ. And all of them, that operation, was in Baghdad prior to the time we launched in there.
He's a man who ordered the killing of Laurence Foley. He tried to smuggle riacin and other products out of that poisons factory. People had been trained in the poisons factory in order to..
(CROSSTALK)
CAVUTO: Where is all that stuff now? Where are all those?
CHENEY: Well, we destroyed the facility when we went in and...
CAVUTO: Right.
CHENEY: ... we launched air strikes on them when we first went in.
CAVUTO: But in your gut, Mr. Vice President, do you think it's still hidden or that it's been discarded (ph) away, some say Syria, some other countries. What do you think?
CHENEY: I think there — we're finding — well, Charles Duelfer, who's now in charge of the Iraq Survey Group, was — just yesterday made announcements that they found additional cells — shells which have tested positive for sarin. And clearly, Saddam Hussein had produced or used weapons of mass destruction in the past. He used it against the Kurds; there's no question about that.
He used it against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war. You can go up into northern Iraq today and go to the fields where the thousands of people are buried that were killed with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein back in the — I think 1888 — 1988.
The — so there's no question about what he's had and has used it in the past. We're now finding — we found a shell the other day that had been wired up as an explosive device that contains sarin. So we're finding...
CAVUTO: So you think we'll find something conclusive?
CHENEY: Well, we're finding, I'd say, at least at this point, items from stockpiles that were never reported, that were never accounted for. Some of it predates the Gulf War. So there's no doubt in my mind we'll find some of that stuff.
Now, exactly how much that's brand new or recent, that's hard to say. It's just — it's still a very big country, there's still a lot of work to be done in terms of looking for it. But the notion that somehow — you know, it's as though people are going back, trying to scrub Saddam clean here now, this is really just a poor, misunderstood fellow there in the Middle East.
CAVUTO: Right.
CHENEY: We've got to remember now what (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and why we did it. And if we had to do it all over again today, we'd do it absolutely. We've liberated in the last three years 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. We got rid of brutal dictatorships, set them on the path towards establishing democracies and representative governments.
CAVUTO: But does it bother you that a lot of them appear pretty ungrateful?
CHENEY: Well, some of them do. But I think the Iraqis — I think they're going to make it. It's tough, it's not easy to do. It's a very hard task. But we've only been at it 15 months.
CAVUTO: Yes.
CHENEY: And look at what we've done already. Saddam's in jail. His sons are dead. His government's gone. We've stood up an interim government there in its place.
We've got — in Afghanistan, we've got a new constitution written. Hamid Karzai addressed a joint session of Congress last week.
CAVUTO: Right.
CHENEY: He'll have free elections later this year. The Iraqis will have elections in January. And we're standing up effective security forces in Iraq so they can take over more of the responsibility for establishing security there so our guys won't have to do it.
So we're heading in the right direction. And it's important for us to — to get the job done. We don't want these countries to revert back to what they were before.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123794,00.html
My theory is that W had been waiting for the 'rats to get out on a limb, and cut it off close to the election, but decided to get it out earlier for just the reasons cited by Kristol.
President Bush gives the left enough rope, and they hang themselves with it. I think that's what we're witnessing now.
" Could the president of the United States have simply left Saddam in power, with sanctions coming off, reconstituting his weapons programs, confident that Saddam and al Qaeda would not work together again in the future? Would this have been a reasonable course of action?"
In addition Saddam had billions of US currency and good buddies like Ayman al Zawahiri and Muqtada al Sadr on which he could lavish his largesse.
If Kerry had his way, the 3 of them plus Uday and Qusay would be roaming unfettered throughout the region.
It is jaw dropping that in a post 9/11 world, anyone could support John Kerry and the Democrats.
Wrong.
"W" stands for "Wope a Dope". That's what is happening to the Dems/Libs/Media with the whole Saddam-al Qaeda connection story and the handwriting is on the wall for a repeat performance with the WMDs which are all of the sudden starting to show up. Bush has let them spread the lies and then he lands on them with a left, a left and another left and then a right to the jaw and down they go.
Kristol worries in vain...we have them on this issue...they will have to be explaining this for some time to come.
CAVUTO: But does it bother you that a lot of them appear pretty ungrateful?
If that had been me, I would have said:
CHENEY: You mean like the French?
Say what you will about Kristol, but his magazine has been at the forefront of exposing the ties between Saddam and Osama.
I'm just saying that sometimes he's a worry wart in vain. Bush & Co. have set the NYT up. Bush & Co. will finish the job.
"Finish the job". I wish. That would depend upon honesty in the rest of the liberal press.
Look, confronted with one lie, they just move to another, unblinking. Conservatives just have to be aware of the reality that an honest political debate in this country through the media is impossible, for the time being. At least while the flagship newpaper is the "openly-gay" NY Times.
It would appear that GW has been quiet on this issue, but he really has not. I'm fortunate that I get to hear most of his speeches when played on the cables, but most people don't. What most people hear him say is heavily filtered through the big 3, both the Slimes, and the comPost.
When the conventions and debates start, and the people start paying attention, we'll all hear him, loud and clear. There will be no filter.
Yes, Bush & Co. will take down the Grey Lady. She will still be there, churning out her stuff, but she will no longer be queen of the world. She will be exposed for the fraud that she is.
That's the plan and it will happen. It's already started.
That's the plan and it will happen. It's already started.
Let's ROLL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.