Skip to comments.Bill OReilly - Lefty press is soft on terror
Posted on 09/20/2004 4:24:20 PM PDT by Spackidagoosh
New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com Lefty press is soft on terror
Monday, September 20th, 2004
What are we to make of The New York Times' describing terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as a "Jordanian militant"? I mean, this guy is one of the most vicious Al Qaeda thugs in the world; right now he's behind much of the violence in Iraq and has been active in the worldwide terror network since at least 1990. On June 17, a U.S. intelligence official provided my researcher Nate Fredman with the following information: In early 2000, Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan to assume a leadership position in an Al Qaeda training camp. There, he and his associates trained other terrorists in how to develop and distribute toxins.
Zarqawi stayed in the Al Qaeda area until war broke out after 9/11. He actively fought against U.S. forces and was wounded. After the collapse of the Taliban, he fled to Iran and then traveled to Iraq, where his wounded leg was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein.
In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi went to northern Iraq to train terrorists with the group Ansar al-Islam, which is affiliated with Al Qaeda. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, Zarqawi went underground to organize resistance. The CIA believes he personally beheaded American hostage Nicholas Berg, and there is now a $25 million bounty on his head.
U.S. intelligence officials say there is no question that Zarqawi is associated with Al Qaeda, but to The New York Times he is a "Jordanian militant."
That seems to be a rather benign description of a vicious terrorist killer, doesn't it?
The reason The Times and some other liberal media operations continue to play down Zarqawi and, indeed, the entire worldwide terror threat, is twofold: First, the liberal press does not want another preemptive strike against terrorists like the one the U.S. launched against Iraq. By denying Zarqawi was an Al Qaeda guy, the liberal media can falsely claim Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.
Second, the anti-Bush press believes that terrorism is the President's strongest issue. So keeping the very real danger of coordinated terror down is a good political strategy for those who want to elect John Kerry.
That's why the Al Qaeda relationship with the brutal Chechen terrorists was muted. Both Russian and U.S. intelligence say Al Qaeda is deeply involved with training and funding the Chechen killers. But you would not know much about that by reading many American newspapers, which described the Chechen child murderers as "insurgents" or, yes, "militants."
The truth is that terrorists seek one another out and cooperate. The fraternity is small but determined. These guys know and often help one another.
That's what's happening in Iraq right now. With foreign terrorists infiltrating from Iran and Syria, Iraq has become the battleground for worldwide terror, and that's why the struggle is so important. And Zarqawi is right in the middle of it.
So let's call worldwide terror what it is: a fanatical confederation bent on destroying a variety of targets, including the U.S. Zarqawi, the Chechen killers and all the other fascist barbarians aren't militants or freedom fighters. They are all part of the terror club, and the duty of an American President is somehow to render them defeated. And the duty of the press is to tell it like it is.
Yeah, O'Reilly we know you donated to the Kerry campaign.
Get lost O'Reilly.
Are you sure that's BOR? He's been so friggin' squishy of late that I have trouble believing it.
An unusual thing to read from a man who believes Dan Rather is an honest journalist.
God help America, O'Reilly and Carville are both writing children's books.
...until you gotta stretch it a little to get that plum interview, right Bill?
But was it fake?
Only O'Reilly knows for sure. Perhaps he's renounced Islam for good this time.
Go easy on him he is just trying to avoid being obviously right biased like Blather is obviously left biased. He's getting the story out which I applaud him for. It would be hypocritical of him to attack media bias every day while being obviously biased himself.
At least O'Rielly said this. It needs to be said.
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.