[ikez78]

This piece is based on comments with mainstream press "journalists"

[ikez78]

PING

[jveritas]

Mark

Excellent article.

[highlander_UW]

Highly unlikely the MSM will pick up and run with this story...it doesn’t fit with their meme.

[arderkrag]

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media

And to different members of the general public. For example, I see it this way:

Link - Group A has interacted with Group B, maybe positively, maybe not.
Ties - As Link, but contact is frequent.
Operational Links - Operations are similar: using the same tactics, fighting with the same weapons, same organizational structure, etc.
Sponsorship - direct funding and support by Group A of Group B, or vice versa.
(I might be wrong on some of these.)

The press intentionally muddles the meanings of these words to indice confusion. Confusion leads to panic. Panic means more people read papaers and watch news.

[Ben Hecks]

Outstanding. Thanks for the ping. More evidence that Saddam was actively involved in terrorism is contained in this 2006 article by Stephen Hayes:

http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=11990&R=EC0D16975

[tomnbeverly]

Those inflicted with BDS are the only ones that can’t see the correlation between Saddam and Terrorists. Islamic Radicals were willing to launch suicide attacks against Amrican cities at the request of Saddam Husseins government. George W. Bush ensured that never happened.

The correct way to frame the debate is to make the Liberals state that they trusted the tyrant.

[marron]

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al-Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al-Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

EIJ formed the nucleus of Al Qaeda, and the head of EIJ is Bin Ladin's second in command, he may be in fact the operational leader of Al Qaeda. Which means that the constant drumbeat that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda is not only not true, it is the opposite of the truth.

Bin Ladin's inner circle was riddled with people who were on Saddam's dime.

Saddam's Iraq was Terror Central. He used terror as a tool of state power, sending his intel officers to supply, fund, and coordinate the actions of the various supposedly free-lance operations we usually consider "Al Qaeda". If "Al Qaeda" is understood to be a collection of ad hoc terror groups who admire Bin Ladin, the term may have some use, but Saddam's intel used these groups as if they were his own.

[Steve_Seattle]

The MSM has its story and it’s sticking to it.

[swmobuffalo]

Bump

[SoldierDad]

All I can say is “WOW”!!! I’m downloading the five volumes of the report so I can read it in it’s entirety. All the better to be armed against the Sheople who keep trying to tell me that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

[SoldierDad]

Didn’t realize just how long it would take to download all five volumes, but it will be worth it.

[1035rep]

Bttt

[Marine_Uncle]

If one has watched the past two days on the PBS Frontline, "Bush's War", one will see how cleverly the L/MSM are making it look like the reasons to go into Iraq where wrong.
As usual. The L/MSM really have won the war on what the public will perceive as being the whole truth. As for as 99.99% of the world's population goes, there where no WDM's in Iraq.
We few obviously know otherwise.