Posted on 06/26/2008 10:06:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Only the first link in post #30 is active...Use that to get to
the articles laid out in the post.
WSJ: Saddam-terrorist connections get no media coverage
Hot Air ^ | March 24, 2008 | Ed Morrissey
************************EXCERPT INTRO***************************
Posted on Mon 24 Mar 2008 03:07:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Wall Street Journal’s editors took the time to read the Pentagon report on the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorist groups, and wonder why the national media have ignored the story. The analysis of the Harmony documents got initially misreported, and after the Pentagon released the full analysis, few if any news agencies opted to correct the initial distortions they published — and the WSJ says that leaves Americans misinformed:
Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq’s links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.
Naturally, it’s getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study’s revelations float by. But that doesn’t make the facts any less notable or true.
*******************************SNIP*********************
*******************************
We covered the misrepresentations earlier in these posts. In one, I used the title that should have been used to headline this story: “Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups”. That was the lede that the American media buried, thanks to a distortion that came from an anonymous Pentagon source that took one sentence from the executive summary out of context and a curious reluctance to address the actual evidence that the report highlights.
The Journal wonders what the media needs to report this story correctly.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
bttt
Bio-Chemical Weapons & Saddam: A History.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/848341/posts
1999,... hmmmmmm.... and which political party held the White House and thought they were a shoe in for a win in the next elections??????? Oh yea! The RATS!
So it seems ABC has forgotten what they had to say about the Butcher of Baghad prior to the invasion.
But the NY TIMES said over and over and over and over, no connection, none
They didn’t like each other..... They’d NEVER work togeather....
Excellent point, bump.
I remember seeing this during the last election. Over the years I’ve thought about this specific ABC show, and wondered why the Bush Admin, Fox news and others have not played it until even the Amish knew about it.
thanks, bfl
One might think they have an Agenda!
Off course the NYSlimes as well as most of the L/MSM took their leads from many so called experts. On this one issue I would give them a basic pass. They went along with the tide of the prevailing thought voiced by many scholars etc..
“Off course the NYSlimes as well as most of the L/MSM took their leads from many so called experts. On this one issue I would give them a basic pass.”
A unified voice, even if it is incorrect, is enough to convince you that Iraq was NOT involved with training/preps for the 9/11 attacks?
If you get a chance, read Jayna Davis’ THE THIRD TERRORIST, she tells the story of several witnesses who explain the OKC terrorist attack organized by eight Iraqi soldiers who defected from Iraq after Gulf War I. It’s an easy story, Iraq was able to place their terrorist attack squad in the United States at the invitation of President Bush who took defectors from the Iraqi army since Sadaham would have killed the real defectors.
Later Sadaham even tried to kill President Bush. Does it make more sense now, or is it too unbelievable that Clinton kept turning terrorist attacks into something different because he did NOT want to have to deal with Iraq directly, so he didn’t until the African Embassy attacks, the US Cole... But 9/11 was the turning point.
So why did we attack Iraq? It wasn’t WMD. Think about it, even Republican Bush wasn’t going to turn Clinton in, he attacked Sadaham because in part that terrorist attacks were killing Americans. Clinton never saw a lie he wouldn’t tell.
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.