Replies

Yeah...these people are frauds. Heck, it was just days after Bush's 2001 Inauguration that the NY Times, with the help of William Cohen (Clinton's Sec. of Defense) were writing stories "warning" the incoming Bush administration of the danger we faced from a rearming Saddam Hussein. Under the 1/22/01 headlines, the NYT's reported via Cohen that "Iraq Resumes WMD Activities," as their own reporters, Eric Schmitt and Steven Meyers, reported that "Iraq Rebuilt Weapons Factories."

These stories concluded that:

"While officials have previously disclosed that Iraq had rebuilt missile plants destroyed in the 1998 strikes, the Jan. 10 report released by Mr. Cohen was the first public acknowledgment of the resumption of work at suspected chemical and biological plants....Some of Iraq's facilities could be converted fairly quickly to production of chemical weapons," the report said at one point. It went on to warn, "Iraq retains the expertise, once a decision is made, to resume chemical agent production within a few weeks or months, depending on the type of agent."

Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed, "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far:"

"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."

On January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:

"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."

NPR reporter Mike Shuster interviewed Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, and offered this report:

"Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan." According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

By mid-February 1999, journalists did not even feel the need to qualify the claims about WMDs and an Iraq-al Qaeda relationship. An Associated Press dispatch that ran in the Washington Post ended this way:

"The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers." Where did journalists get the idea that Saddam and bin Laden might be coordinating efforts? Among other places, from high-ranking Clinton administration officials. In the spring of 1998--well before the U.S. embassy bombings in East Africa--the Clinton administration indicted Osama bin Laden. The indictment, unsealed a few months later, prominently cited al Qaeda's agreement to 'collaborate with Iraq and Saddam on weapons of mass destruction'..."

What makes this even more relevant WRT Wilson and his Niger claims is that Saddam already possessed 500 tons of Uranium long before we even went into Iraq. Not only has the media ignored this story, they didn't seem to have any questions about where Saddam may have procured it. The fact that they took Wilson's claims at face value, when he even acknowledged that Niger was approached by Saddam's reps in 1999 to seal a deal, indicates they have no need for the truth. The fact that Niger would deny any deal with Saddam seems to only come as a surprise to Wilson (and his media brethren)...since such an admission would've been a clear violation of International Law and UN sanctions.

From the Kay and Duelfer(sp) Reports on WMDs to the Butler and Senate Intel Reports (discrediting Joe Wilson)....and even the 9/11 Commission Report, the media has either ignored or totally misprepresented the facts in each of these investigations to advance the Democrats anti-Bush agenda. And they have played these political games at the cost of endangering our soldiers lives and the lives of each and every one of us. This is no longer just a biased media; they have become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party, using the power of the press and their 1st Amendment privledges (and Shield Laws) to advance an agenda that we couldn't legally do without violating some law.