A leak they do not like
Over 24 hours after the Weekly Standard broke the story on al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq, most of the mainstream media continues to ignor this blockbuster report.
Newsweek is still running its "Cheney is unreasonably obsessed" story on the al Qaeda Saddam axis. The following excerpt is currently running on its website:
"Cheney has repeatedly suggested that Baghdad has ties to Al Qaeda. He has pointedly refused to rule out suggestions that Iraq was somehow to blame for the 9/11 attacks and may even have played a role in the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The CIA and FBI, as well as a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, have dismissed this conspiracy theory. Still, as recently as Sept. 14, Cheney continued to leave the door open to Iraqi complicity. He brought up a report—widely discredited by U.S. intelligence officials—that 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001. And he described Iraq as 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.' A few days later, a somewhat sheepish President Bush publicly corrected the vice president. There was no evidence, Bush admitted, to suggest that the Iraqis were behind 9/11."
Then ther is this discussion under the title "Did Cheney Mislead America?" which follows the theme of the cover story "How Dick Cheney Sold the War."
The discussion is with Michael Isikoff who sounds like a voice of sanity in a sea of left wing paranoia judging by the questions he responds to. However, I did not see any question about the Weekly Standard report showing al Qaeda's ties to Saddam.
But then, the NY Times, Washington Post and Time have also ignored the story so far. The story made the front page of the NY Post and made the Fox News channel website as well as broadcast. It is more than curious that others have so far continued to ignor a story that does much to disprove one of their current thesis.
Over 24 hours after the Weekly Standard broke the story on al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq, most of the mainstream media continues to ignor this blockbuster report.
Newsweek is still running its "Cheney is unreasonably obsessed" story on the al Qaeda Saddam axis. The following excerpt is currently running on its website:
"Cheney has repeatedly suggested that Baghdad has ties to Al Qaeda. He has pointedly refused to rule out suggestions that Iraq was somehow to blame for the 9/11 attacks and may even have played a role in the terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The CIA and FBI, as well as a congressional investigation into the 9/11 attacks, have dismissed this conspiracy theory. Still, as recently as Sept. 14, Cheney continued to leave the door open to Iraqi complicity. He brought up a report—widely discredited by U.S. intelligence officials—that 9/11 hijacker Muhammad Atta had met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001. And he described Iraq as 'the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.' A few days later, a somewhat sheepish President Bush publicly corrected the vice president. There was no evidence, Bush admitted, to suggest that the Iraqis were behind 9/11."
Then ther is this discussion under the title "Did Cheney Mislead America?" which follows the theme of the cover story "How Dick Cheney Sold the War."
The discussion is with Michael Isikoff who sounds like a voice of sanity in a sea of left wing paranoia judging by the questions he responds to. However, I did not see any question about the Weekly Standard report showing al Qaeda's ties to Saddam.
But then, the NY Times, Washington Post and Time have also ignored the story so far. The story made the front page of the NY Post and made the Fox News channel website as well as broadcast. It is more than curious that others have so far continued to ignor a story that does much to disprove one of their current thesis.
Comments
Post a Comment