They Collaborated Before They Didn’t Collaborate? Or Something?
Okay, so the ever-so-wonderfully-objective-and-non-partisan 9-11 Commission is now saying there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
Granted, I never considered a link between the two to be a prerequisite for taking out Saddam’s regime, this report just doesn’t quite hold to me…
Bin Laden made overtures to Saddam for assistance, the commission said in the staff report, as he did with leaders in Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere as he sought to build an Islamic army.
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a “collaborative relationship.”
Okay, so they were in contact, but they weren’t collaborating? What is that supposed to mean? Are we supposed to believe that while they were talking their was absolutely no assistance or some mutually beneficial arrangements made? Did Saddam’s regime just say “Thanks, but no thanks?” I don’t buy it.
“Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded,” the report said. “There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida also occurred” after bin Laden moved his operations to Afghanistan in 1996, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,” it said.
“Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq,” the report said.
Well, now that settles it… Two senior bin Laden associates have “adamantly denied” ties… Great! Now I’m convinced… How silly of me to have doubted this before…
While you’re contemplating this, order a copy of The Connection : How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America, by Stephen F. Hayes.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Matt, admitting you are in denial is the first step to recovery. Then, before you know it, you’ll actully be viewing what most of call “reality.” Oh, and had forgotten so soon that Bush exprssly stated that there was no evidence that Iraq was involved with Al-Qaeda on 9-11?
Cole, yes he did – you are correct. But that was only one operation of many and only one aspect of dozens. Iraq did maintain a terrorist training camp complete with airplane bodies south of Bahgdad. In some respects, Saddam and Bin Laden hate each other – but they share a common foe. And war makes strange bed fellows. There is evidence they collaborated. Just as both collaborated with Iran. Think about the fact that Iraq practically gave its Air Force to Iran rather than have us destroy it just a few years after being at war with them.
The good that the war in Iraq has done is (in my humble opinion)that it has flushed every American hating wacko out of the woodwork and had them all packing for Iraq. That is good because there, they run into soldiers and Marines who send them staright to hell. Bush threw a lightning rod into the mid-east. It is better than having these wackos attack Kansas City or Sacramento isn’t it?
Oh – one thing – not all the American hating wackos are fighting us from there. Some work for ABC, CBS, CNN, and the DNC.
I don’t think the wackos are coming out the wordwork, I think the lunatics are coming off the production line. If anything recruiters have more propaganda they can exaggerate and fool people into believing.
The media is anti-American? Did you forget how many days they spent extolling the greatness of Ronald Reagan. Or how they took Bush’s word for gold for many months after 9/11. I still strongly disagree with them at least they are reporting what is happening and not censoring things to make the war seem more peachy.
Wrong about the censoring my friend – what GOOD news have you heard out of them lately? The Marine Captains who got the Navy Cross for leading his men into Bahgdad as a Lietenant? The schools and hospitals and sanitation facilities the troops have opened, any interviews with on-the-street soldiers or Marines in Iraq (ANY? Why not?) No, you are wrong. The e-mails I’ve seen from friends and relatives serving in Iraq tell me that there is self imposed anti-American censorship. These troops believe that the press lost Viet Nam – now they see them trying to do it again. What will the Dems and libs do in 5 or 10 years when these people now in uniform enter the political world. Tour ideas are corrupt. Peace through victory.
“there is self imposed anti-American censorship. These troops believe that the press lost Viet Nam – now they see them trying to do it again”
What your saying sounds like the German “stab in the back” theory from World War 1. I have seen human interest stories about Iraq and the soldiers on those stations, though I don’t watch them often. I don’t think sound bites, news alerts, and discussions between “experts” are a good source of news anyway. Viacom, Time Warner, Walt Disney, and Fox as well don’t have an agenda so much as a want for higher ratings. If they have to decide between the car bombing or a medal being awarded to a heroic soldier I’m sure they’ll pick the former. Unfortunately video of the aftermath of something terrible is more eyegrabbing. When that football player died all news stations gave him plenty of positive coverage, its a ratings game not some conspiracy. I think people can make up their own mind about which news they find credible or faulty and make choices that are not decided by mass media.
Miles – if it was a ratings game – they would ALL be like Fox.
NBC, CBS, and ABC have higher viewership than Fox, and Fox does not show the war any differently, it merely has newcasters and pundits that are visibly conservative. So you think its a conspiracy? I think media consolidation is much worse than the percieved bias…
Conspiracy? No. I agree with you. But, they do share a common belief system and almost all are registered Democrats.
And, how does FOX news stand up to the other news shows. Now, what other conservative news channel can you point to? And, I think that some of Norths reporting from the front has been unique.
See in my opinion they are all more conservative than liberal, Fox has openly conservative newcasters while others have pseudo-liberals. Time Warner’s political action committee has given 60% of its donations to Republicans this year. Walt Disney’s PAC gave evenly, and Viacom’s PAC gave 62% to Republicans as did General Electric who owns NBC. I don’t hear from them what I consider liberal news, that would mean they would focus on stuff like civil rights, globalization and militarism as bad, corruption in politics, socialized medincine, etc. But thats my definition of liberal biased news, if I knew what you meant by liberal then I’d probably agree with you.
Miles good point about my definition. Harder to define for the main stream media, as I think that they just support the Democratic Party – and the party may or may not care about those issues based upon the political needs of the day. I will try to define that better. I think there are two levels of liberal bias – one is deeper unashamed liberalism like you describe. (NPR, NYT, Wash. Post) Some is more pragmatic and generally just supports the party or attacks the Republicans. They slant it with words like “sensible and reasonable” when talking about gun laws for example. Or, they describe Republicans with the words “moderate”,”Extremist” or “Radical”, yet never come up with these adjectives for Democrats.
Let me ask you, on TV, Radio, and in print:
How about NPR, are they liberal? I know that Diane Rheem has a daily show that is VERY leberal. It’s harder to spot in the morning and afternoon news – but not if you pay attention.
Is the Washingto Post liberal? This is the papaer than called Bush stupid for months – then ran the headline “Gores grades almost as good as Bush’s” when it turned out he got better grades than Gore in College. SSpeaking of that, were you under the opposite impression? Wonder why?
The New York Times (they have covered the prison “attrocities” on the front page nearly EVERY day for a month and a half)?
How about the LA Times?
You don’t think that 60 minutes is Liberal?
Or 48 Hours?
Or Nightline? How many military bashing episodes have they done in the last month? I’d say at least 10. But I can barely stand watching it anymore.
Which Sunday morning “talking” heads shows would you say are liberal and which are conservative? Is Stephanopolus (sorry on the spelling) a pseudo liberal?
“On May 26, 2004, the Times published another significant admission of journalistic failings, admitting that its flawed reporting during the buildup to war with Iraq helped promote the misleading belief that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.”
The New York Times also has conservative editorialists like William Safire.
On NPR Republican sources outnumbered Democratic ones by 3 to 2. 64% of their sources came from government officials, professional experts, and corporate representatives. Public interest groups make up only 7% of sources and organized labor was almost not existent. I think if their public they’ll give an alternate take to the news than corporate media but unfortunately they don’t.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0405/npr-study.html
I don’t read the Washington Post or the LA times often, but remember than with newspapers and radio there are many conservative news sources and there is by no means a monopoly of liberal media.
Miles – As Steven Wright says – 58% of statistics are made up on the spot.
I would have expected that with a Republican House, Senate, and White House that the percentage would be higher! But really, those numbers don’t work. Just listen to their news shows. Example – Clinton is a great speaker, G Bush was OK also. During the campaign, they would play Clinton sound bites and and read Bush ones (putting emphasis wherever they wanted). Bush was president, and they would read his soundbites? This campaign – I’ve noticed the opposite. We all know GW Bush is not the best speaker, but Kerry is just awful. They read Kerry and play Bush. They also carefully craft the arguments in their stories to promote the liberal view on stories. A few years ago, they ran such a slanted anti-gun story that I actually stopped at a gun store on the way home from work and joined the NRA.
They do the in depth liberal oriented stories you were talking about. No, I just can’t except that NPR is not liberal. Saying there are statistics to say they don’t give a more liberal view than the mainstream media misses the subltle ways they write stories – and it re-enforces my point that the mainstream media is ALSO liberal!
And, you mention only the main news shows. They have a program of shows that lasts all day. Diane Rheem has stated on-air how much she loathes the Boy Scouts (for not letting homosexual men take my 11 year old camping in the woods). There are other shows. None with a conservative slant – certainly you’ll agree to that? During the first Gulf War, the Dallas NPR station would play the war news at 9:00 AM, and follow it with John Lennons “Imagine” EVERY DAY – until I and other conservatives started calling the station asking them if they were making a point? They were.
In 1993 NPR quoted 57 percent Republican to 42 percent Democrat, when a Democrat was in the White House. How you believe they treat speeches proves nothing, you’d have to listen to NPR every day for every hour and do this over a long period of time to show that they do it consistently. And the instances you provide might have done vice versa for the candidates. I also read NPR’s response to FAIR’s study, and they actually agreed for the most part except for a few technicalities. I think NPR is a credible source of news, its fair and not biased in one direction, especially when most other radio is outrightly conservative and owned by a few large companies. A conservative bias is no better than a liberal one.
As for the the TV shows you mentioned, I think they are biased in delivering garbage rather than something conservative or liberal. They’ll waste 10 minutes on a consumer report on some infrequent scam or something like killer bees to scare a person. And luckily if you don’t agree with them you don’t have to watch them.
“Liberal media” is making anyone more liberal, and I do not think there is a conservative solution to it if it ever could be shown to exist.
OH “for not letting homosexual men take my 11 year old camping in the woods”, yeah but what about the ones crawling around at schools masquerading as teachers? I think the Boy Scouts have the right to decide who can join but I assure you gay men can’t hurt your 11 year old any more than straight ones.
Miles – so NPR agrees with the study that they are not more liberal than the main stream media? Good – that settles it then. Mainstream media IS biased and they DO work towards an agenda (Hey, ABC going into Guantanamo – some may be guilty – but some may be innocent, Peter Jennings will decide!)And – if FOX is THE conservative channel – is your point that aALL the other channels are fair or garbage and only THEY are bad? That is ludicrous – and proves the point. You argue the liberal point here to the point that you think the mainsteam media is not liberal enough. I don’t think we’ll get any further in this discussion.
And, you lost me on the last point. So we should stop supporting Scouts, or we should kick gay teachers out of their jobs? Or what? Scouts is a volunteer organization. Tell me, know why it was started? Look up Lord Baden-Powell. But, before I go too far, I guess I don’t understand your point.
If I assert something is blue and you assert something is red, and I cannot not prove its blue, then that still does not make it red. You have provided no studies or statistics to support your claims, nothing is settled. NPR agreed with the information and but not FAIR’s conclusions FYI. And garbage is garbage, who J’lo is marrying or sensational stories about killer bees and asteroids represents apolitical sewage that we could all do without.
I was a Boy Scout, but my last point was tongue in cheek. I was just saying that gay people can’t hurt your children.
Agrred on the media. agree to disagree. I’m not relying on studies – I listen to NPR an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during my commute.
The Scouts are fanatics about protecting children. That is what its about. They do much good in many communities and teach leadership skills and more. And yet, they are being penalized, denied funding and access to land and facilities because they choose to exercise their right to freedom of association. The attacks on them are more sinister than you realize.