June 23, 2004

"Saddam, al-Qaeda Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panels Conclusion at Odds With Administration." That was the headline from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The New York Times chimed in with, "Panel Finds No Qaida-Iraq Tie." Not to be outdone the Washington Post led, "Al-Qaida-Hussein Link Dismissed."

The main stream media were doing their best Howard Dean and Al Gore imitations as they screamed about an interim report from the staff of the 9-11 commission in which one line was extracted and used by media pundits as they attempted to slay their perceived dragon that resides in the White House, George W Bush.

The mighty sword these media elites wielded simply stated: We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Theres just one little; as far as the press is obviously concerned, insignificant problem with this media blitz that dramatically dulls the edge of their blade. No one in the Bush administration ever said Iraq was a part of or cooperated on the attacks of September 11, 2001!

Since the 9-11 commission was created to investigate the events surrounding that tragic day so they can then present the information they gather in a comprehensive report to help prevent any possible future catastrophes, how is it they would have any information about Iraq at all if there are no connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda?

The answer to that is there are connections between the two and the evidence is so extensive the commission had no choice but to investigate that evidence. The result of that is also contained in the report from which the line was taken.

Vice Chairman of the Panel, Lee Hamilton reiterated that fact saying, "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Husseins government. We dont disagree with that. What we have said is that we dont have any evidence of a cooperative or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to attacks on the United States."

Going back to 2002, the President said, "We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy-the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al-Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade."

Every quote made by president Bush or his administration about this topic has been well documented. So when liberals were first confronted back then about their mendacious headlines and editorials, they simply adjusted their attack. No, the President never actually stated Iraq was part of the 9-11 attack, but because of their superior liberal intellect, they could show the common people how he was using innuendo to make that point.

Take for instance recent commentary from Maureen Dowd of the New York Times where she points out how incompetent many of us are on this issue. "If our leaders didnt lead us there, why did 69% of Americans, in a Washington Post poll last September, believe that Saddam was involved in the attacks?" Lets see, would the answer to that be...the media!

She continues by isolating the truly moronic peons among us using a poll that showed, "80% of those who watch Fox [News] believed at least one of three misconceptions: that WMD had been found; that al Qaeda and Iraq were tied; or that the world had approved of U.S. intervention in Iraq."

Right about now all of the 80% in that poll who are reading this should be rolling in the floor, laughing at our own stupidity! Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and botullinum toxin have all been found in Iraq, even the 9-11 commission admits there are ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, and U.N. Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously. We must be missing the innuendo part!

The smell of a smoking gun should have inundated the media over the weekend when Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed to the press that, "After Sept. 11, 2001 and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddams regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests."

The media doesn't care that Operation Iraqi Freedom was not initiated in response to 9-11, but to prevent another 9-11. The president explained that "Saddam, was a threat because he had terrorist connections- not only al-Qaeda connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations." The media only seem to care that Americans think that was the case.

The media's belligerence over President Bushs State of the Union Address statement that British intelligence reported Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger reached a crescendo when former ambassador Joe Wilson wrote in a New York Times editorial he thought it, "was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." He didn't say it never happened, just that he doubted it.

Yet an excerpt taken from his new book was reported on page A-16 of the Washington Post on April 30,2004, that contradicted the very maelstrom he helped to create. "It was Saddam Husseins information minister, Mohammed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as Baghdad Bob, who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade - an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium," Wilson wrote.

There are no headlines that announce the president was right. There are no headlines of apology. There are only headlines for a new day that indicate the media has merely moved on to the next wave of attacks that seem to many Americans as the medias attempt to remove that simple-minded, misleading cowboy from the White House.

Why, they might respect him more if he would just admit his mistakes.

Lee P Butler