New York Times Headline Story is a Lie

Techniguy

June 17, 2004

Today, the New York Times published vicious propaganda lies in their headline story on the front page. This is a prime example of the false reporting and political propaganda that the times has been guilty of for some time now. The complete article will be attached to this newsletter. A similar story appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

The article on the front page opens with:

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

June 17, 2004

THE OVERVIEW

Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie; Describes a Wider Plot for 9/11

By PHILIP SHENON and CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

ASHINGTON, June 16 - The staff of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks sharply contradicted one of President Bush's central justifications for the Iraq war, reporting on Wednesday that there did not appear to have been a "collaborative relationship" between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. The assertion came in staff reports that offer a chilling, richly detailed chronology of the Sept. 11 plot and rewrite much of the history of the attacks.

This is an outright lie and the Times knows it. If they donít, then they are simply buying into their own propaganda. President Bush never used 911 as direct justification for the war on Iraq and never said Iraq and Saddam Hussein had any responsibility for, or tie to 911. This is a fabrication by Democrats.

The article goes on to discuss the 911 Commissionís findings, and then in the 7th paragraph it states:

As for Iraq, the commission's staff said its investigation showed that the government of Mr. Hussein had rebuffed or ignored requests from Qaeda leaders for help in the 1990's, a conclusion that directly contradicts a series of public statements President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made before and after last year's invasion of Iraq in justifying the war.

Another lie. The Administration never said anything of the kind contrary to the commissionís findings. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, Bush and/or Cheney never commented one way or the other on whether Hussein had rebuffed or accepted requests from Al Qaeda leaders for help in the 90s. What they did say was that there were communications and ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but not involving the 911 attacks.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," one of the staff reports released on Wednesday said. "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 that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

Now the Times prints the truth for a change and reports the findings of the commission that clearly support what the President and Vice President have been saying all along. Itís only the words that the Democrats try to put in Bushís mouth that are untrue.

The White House said on Wednesday that it did not see the commission's staff reports as a contradiction of past statements by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and that the administration had always been careful not to suggest that it had proof of a tie between Mr. Hussein and Sept. 11.

"It is not inconsistent for Iraq to have ties with Al Qaeda and not to have been involved in 9/11 or other potential plots against America," Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said.

So then why is the Times trying to make it look like the Bush Administration lied about Iraq and 911? Maybe because of the following statements by their choice for the Whitehouse, the ďband-aid heroĒ.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent in the November election, said that the reports by the Sept. 11 commission were evidence that the "administration misled America, the administration reached too far." In an interview with the Detroit radio station WDET, Mr. Kerry said that "they did not tell the truth to Americans about what was happening or their own intentions."

Obviously, Mr. Kerry has been getting his news from the New York Times and paying no attention to what is actually happening and being said. Or did Kerry and The Times conspire to concoct these lies together to mislead the public about what the Presidentís position and statements really were to try to gain votes. Mr. Kerry, you can fool some of the people all of the time but youíre just not capable of fooling all of the people even some of the time. Better start submitting your resume and find another job. Massachusetts wants you out of the Senate for neglecting your duties 63% of the time in 2003, and 87% of the time this year. However, if you want to continue missing your votes in the Senate thatís fine with me.

The contradictions between the staff reports' findings and past White House statements on Iraq were all the more striking given that the commission's staff director, and the final editor of the reports, is Philip D. Zelikow, a University of Virginia historian who was a member of Mr. Bush's White House transition team and who served on his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until last year.

What contradictions? If you leave out the statements that the Democrats are trying to put into Bushís mouth, it would seem that the commissionís report will support what the President and Vice President really have been saying. That is that Iraq was a terrorist supporting state. Iraq had WMD and other weapons banned by the cease fire agreement in 1991 and by 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions over a period of 12 years. Iraq was not involved in the 911 attacks but that possibility was investigated thoroughly after the attack as Iraq was a prime suspect at the time. That is, and always has been the administrationís position. We donít need the New York Times attempts at rewriting history.

Iraq need not have been involved in the 911 attacks to justify our military action there and 911 was never used as a justification for the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration beyond the fact that Iraq was at the top of the terrorist list and a declared enemy of the United States in the War On Terror. When will the Democrats ever learn that a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is not the same thing as a connection between Hussein and 911? When will Democrats ever learn that this is not a crime and punishment police action as it was considered during the Clinton Administration, itís a WAR on terror and those who support terror against our country and our allies. Clinton didnít have the courage to confront it, Bush does. The result of Clintons inaction was a build up of the Al Qaeda Terrorist Organization in spite of repeated attacks on our country resulting in the devastation on September 11, 2001. Thatís when Bin Ladden found out that he was no longer dealing with Bill Clinton. George W. Bush was not going to wait for Iraq to do the same, then treat it as a crime. He did the right thing by stopping Hussein before he could launch an attack which was already his stated goal.

Bush told no lies, nor did he attempt to mislead the public. He made the strongest case he could against Iraq to get the support of the UN and the Democrats, based on the intelligence information he inherited from the Clinton Administration. Some of that information may have been flawed but itís more likely that Iraq was exporting stockpiles of WMD even as we were advancing into the country and after. Some WMD still remains in Iraq and have been found by the military and others have been detonated by terrorists in roadside bombs. In time, I have no doubt that we will have all the proof we need to show that Bush was correct even on the WMD issue. Will the New York Times print the story? I doubt it unless theyíre found at the Abu Ghriab Prison.