June 25, 2004


Media Hound

"Mr. bin Laden"?????

What's next for the Times, "Mr Hitler"?


There is no "heated public debate" over the third category (AQ role in 9/11), there is just the ridiculous circular thrashing around of the NYT and its ilk as they pit a claim the admin. never made (AQ was involved) against the public record (which the NYT hilariously and pathetically wrote "tends to bear out" the admin. defense that it never made such a claim) -- everyone recall "imminent threat"?

As to the first two categories, has it ever occurred to any of the silly lightweights at the country's "elite' media organizations to, say, at least ponder how the 9/11 staff statements relate to the CIA's position as of Oct. 2002? Specifically:

"* We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.

* Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

* Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

The staff statement, extremely narrowly and carefully drawn to put "collaboration" in the context of "attacks on the US," would seem to actually implicitly accept these CIA assessments.

So this latest document is interesting, but the stark contradiction between known public elements of the discussion and the NYT's ridiculous editorials and typically poor "reporting" predates it.

Jim G.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what the Times writes about Al Queda and Saddam's links, a recent poll still puts public opinion, 68% or so (too lazy to look it up again), fimly believing that Saddam either knew about, or was involved in 9/11. The shrills are just so loud in their own mind, they can't hear anything else.


Knew about, not was involved in. I think that's an important distinction in the polling.

The comments to this entry are closed.