[joseph20]

I love that Editor's Note. Did they really have to add that? Sheesh. It's obvious what side they are on.

[JennysCool]

Yup. They're printing it and yet saying "pay no attention to it" at the same time.

Keeping their agenda going requires more contortions than an acrobat in a pretzel factory.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From pg 2 :

******************************

"Al Qaeda Presence in Iraq"

Document dated August 2002

A number of correspondences to check rumors that some members of al Qaeda organization have entered Iraq. Three letters say this information cannot be confirmed. The letter on page seven, however, says that information coming from "a trustworthy source" indicates that subjects who are interested in dealing with al Qaeda are in Iraq and have several passports.

The letter seems to be coming from or going to Trebil, a town on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. Follow up on the presence of those subjects is ordered, as well as comparison of their pictures with those of Jordanian subjects living in Iraq. (This may be referring to pictures of Abu Musaab al Zarqawi and another man on pages 4-6) The letter also says tourist areas, including hotels and rented apartments, should be searched.

(Editor's note: This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002. The document does not support allegations that Iraq was colluding with al Qaeda.)

See MM Blog link at post #5 for sketch of Zarqawi.

[jammer]

Well, there are more than one editors notes. The last one is pretty good, about the French. The one to which you refer is, well, uncommon. You'll probably never see one (other than the last) which supports a Republican position. That being said, that note does make a legitimate point which can be debated.

[ThirstyMan]

Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

Right! The editor's note is pure commentary.

Weak sourcing didn't bother the media news outlets when the CBS forged-but-true ANG document just "surfaced".

Their hypocrisy is sickening.

[marvlus]

I love that Editor's Note. Did they really have to add that? Sheesh. It's obvious what side they are on.

The Dan Rather/Mary Mapes fraud letter deal has them running scared!

[Loyal Buckeye]

I love that Editor's Note.

They are just following journalistic standards, like they always do.

[bcsco]

"I love that Editor's Note. Did they really have to add that? Sheesh. It's obvious what side they are on."

No different than all the unnamed sources the MSM uses every day, is it. The hypocrisy of it all!

[SittinYonder]

I love that Editor's Note

That editor's note is exactly why the MSM's days are numbered. The editor needs a kick in the b*lls.

The fact is, I saw "editor's note" and automatically skipped it in my reading ... your post made me go back up and read what it said.