Religions > Atheism > Liberalism Is A YANG'S Mental Disorder. ==> The media lied about President Bush and the 9/11 Commission findings
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Hitlery KKKlinton" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2005 09:20:24 AM |
| Object: |
Liberalism Is A YANG'S Mental Disorder. ==> The media lied about President Bush and the 9/11 Commission findings |
The media lied about President Bush and the 9/11 Commission findings
Gerard Jackson
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 21 June 2004
The 9/11 Commission has found no "credible evidence" linking Saddam to
the 9/11 atrocity. This conclusion has led every Bush-hating journalist
on the planet to accuse President Bush of lying to the
American public. The problem is that it was not the commission that
made this statement but a staffer.
Roy Eccleston, Washington correspondent for Rupert Murdoch's
Australian, stated: "Alleged links between former Iraqi leader Saddam
and Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida were a prime justification within the
White House for the US-led invasion of Iraq" (Bush 'misled US' in march
to war, 18 June).
Eccleston is deliberating misleading readers. Notice how he slipped
from Saddam having no link with 9-11 to him having no links with al
Qaeda. By this slight of hand Eccleston felt able to say that the "two
stated reasons for the war - Saddam's alleged weapons of mass
destruction and the purported Iraq-al-Qa'ida link -appear
increasingly unsupportable.
Not only is Eccleston dishonest he is also incompetent. He quoted
Senator Kerry as turning "his sights on the White House hawks
yesterday. 'They did not tell the truth to Americans about what was
happening or their own intentions,' he said".
Yet on 9 October 2002 Kerry gave a speech on the floor of the Senate in
which he emphatically stated that Saddam Hussein "has chemical and
biological weapons" that are "a grave threat to our security and that
of our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
Kerry continued" "I will be voting to give the president of the United
States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam
Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
On 17 February 1998 President Clinton stated: "If Saddam rejects peace
and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously
diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."
When it came to Saddam's WMDs President Bush did no more than state an
opinion that was shared with the Democrats, the French, the Germans,
various intelligence agencies and the UN.
Only a lying propagandist would deliberately ignore these facts in the
hope of damaging President Bush. I guess that tells us what Eccleston
is.
The Bush has categorically stated that al Qaeda had links with Saddam.
And he is absolutely right. But according to Eccleston" the commission
found no working relationship between the former Iraqi regime and the
terrorist network, quoting top al-Qa'ida terrorists in custody as
'adamantly' denying any ties existed". Really? Perhaps Eccleston and
the commissioners can explain a 1998 Clinton Justice Department
indictment of bin Laden, according to which:
"Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the
Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist
group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their
perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States.
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of
Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on
particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al
Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
The indictment was based on information supplied by Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl
said that in the mid-1990s al Qaeda and Saddam struck a deal to work
together. The go-between was Mahmdouh Mahmud Salim, a close associate
of bin Laden.
In 2002 George Tenet sent a letter to Congress in which he said: "We
have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda
going back a decade . . . We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's
leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D.
capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training
to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making
conventional bombs."
The 9-11 Commission did not challenge Tenet's letter, nor did Congress.
However, the commission approvingly quoted Tenet's view that al Qaeda's
ability is "one of the most immediate threats the United
States is likely to face."
Yet the same commissioners made no reference to Mr Tenet's letter to
Congress in which he also said: "We have solid reporting of senior
level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
Furthermore, the commission said that al Qaeda had an "ambitious"
biochemical weapons program and "was making advances in its ability to
produce anthrax prior to September 11." Now maybe Eccleston would care
to tell us which Middle Eastern thug was most able and likely to assist
bin Laden's weapons program.
Eccleston also said that the commissioners quoted "top al-Qa'ida
terrorists in custody as 'adamantly' denying any ties existed." I know
why journalists like Eccleston are prepared to accept terrorist
statements as true over anything President Bush may say, but the
commissioners? Perhaps we should ask Gorelick and Ben-Veniste for an
explanation.
Nevertheless, regardless of what lying journalists have said the
commissioners did not actually say that Saddam and bin Laden were not
in league with each other. They did not conclude that there was no
Qaeda-Iraq tie. The following sentence from the report is what
Bush-hating journalists have used to state otherwise:
"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on
attacks against the United States." (Emphasis added).
Carefully note one thing about this passage: It does not state Saddam
is innocent and that he and al Qaeda did not cooperated in the 9-11
atrocity, only that the commissioners did not have sufficient evidence
to make a firm decision either way. In other words, this sentence
should be interpreted as case still open. Only a bigoted or stupid
journalist could state otherwise. Isn't that right, Eccleston?
Regardless of what Eccleston and the rest of his Bush-hating
journalists claim, bin Laden's links to Saddam have been extensively
explored to a point that exceeds any reasonable doubt.
Any journalist who serious about getting at the truth would have read
Stephen F. Hayes article The Connection in which he lays out the
connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. Hayes has now published his
findings as a book, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration With
Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America
Now who said that there was no "credible evidence that Iraq and Al
Qaeda cooperated"? The answer is commission staffer Douglas MacEachin,
a former senior CIA officer. So how could he have made this statement
in good faith when it is contradicted by overwhelming evidence to the
contrary?
Perhaps a little background history will help. MacEachin was part of
that group of CIA officers who during the Reagan administration
believed that the Soviets never sponsored terrorism. We now know, of
course, just how wrong MacEachin was. However, he has no excuse for
being wrong at time because, once again, his views were "contradicted
by overwhelming evidence to the contrary".
Demonstrating his masterly grasp of intelligence data, MacEachin also
attacked analyses showing that the Soviets were developing bioweapons,
something we now know to be true.
Moreover, during the '90s he gained a reputation for forcing agency
analysts to doctor their intelligence assessments to fit in with the
Clinton administration policies. So what gives? I know one thing for
sure, this is one topic that Mr Roy Eccleston is certainly going to
investigate.
MacEachin's role on the commission brings to mind the 1975 Church and
Pike committees that were set up to investigate the country's
intelligence agencies. Unfortunately their findings were manipulated by
staffers linked to the Washington-based pro-Soviet IPS (Institute for
Policy Studies). The result was a disaster for American intelligence,
one that contributed to the 9-11 atrocity
Brendan Nicholson, National Security Correspondent for The Age (aka the
Spencer Street Soviet) responded to the 9/11 findings with this brazen
piece of dishonesty: "The US commission investigating the
September 11 terror attacks has found no evidence that Iraq and
al-Qaeda co-operated in the attacks or had any sort of 'collaborative
relationship.'" (9/11 news 'sinks war rationale').
Nicholson is clearly implying that President Bush had stated that
Saddam had a hand in the 9-11 atrocity. But we already know that he
never said any such thing. As for Iraq and al-Qaeda not having a
"collaborative relationship", the evidence simply does not bear this
out - just ask Stephen Hayes.
If Nicholson was anything of a real journalist he would have acquainted
himself with the accumulating evidence linking Saddam to bin Laden.
So what motivated Nicholson? Simple, he's just another Bush-hating
lefty who wants to embarrass Australia's conservative government
because it had the moral courage to join George Bush and Tony Blair in
overthrowing the sadistic Saddam.
If you think Eccleston is a slimy toad what till you get a load of Paul
McGeough and the raw sewerage he spews out and calls journalism. The is
the same creep who calls terrorists who murder and mutilate Iraqis
"resistance fighters".
According to this Bush-hating bigot the President is a man "who lies
and exaggerates? A leader who uses fear to manipulate his people to his
own ends? A president whose staff blow the deep cover of a CIA agent as
political payback? A president whose Administration channels billions
of dollars to crony corporations on false pretexts? A president who
deems torture acceptable?" (The strange, sad death of the American way,
18 June, The Age).
They don't come more vicious, bigoted, malevolent or as mendacious as
the America-hating Lefty McGeough. Now who does McGeough use to support
these viciously outlandish accusations? The America-hating William
Rivers Pitt who is "a political analyst for something called the
Institute for Public Accuracy."
This institute is headed by Norman Solomon, a Stalinist and a good mate
of Saddam's before they dragged him out of his spider hole. Solomon is
also a supporter of the Stalinist Chip Berle who in 1983 helped found
the "Chicago Area Friends of Albania" with the aim of helping the
Stalinist leader of Albania, Enver Hoxha.
Berle is so vile even Antiwar.com warned people about him and his
friends, saying "These guys are killers: they will do anything to
destroy those they perceive as enemies."
It only takes a quick look at the kind of company McGeough keeps to
understand what a sleazeball he is and why he is not to be trusted.
Ever the Bush-hater, McGeough tried to smear President Bush by quoting
a group of 27 former US diplomats and military officers who claimed
that the President "justified the invasion of Iraq by manipulation of
uncertain intelligence about [WMD], and by a cynical campaign to
persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al-Qaeda and the
attacks of September 11."
These are outrageous lies and one can only wonder what motivated these
men to sink to such a despicable level. Bush did not manipulate
intelligence, which was shared with the Democrats. Neither he nor any
member of his administration ever claim or hinted that " Hussein was
linked to . . . the attacks of September 11" - and McGeough damn well
knows it.
The them that ran through these honourable journalists' reports, apart
from their hatred of Bush, is that Bush used an alleged link between
Saddam and 9-11 to justify the war. The is baloney and they know it.
War was justified by UN resolution 1441 that authorised the use force
as from 7 December 2002. This is a simple fact that the media have
deliberately spiked in order to turn public opinion against the war and
President Bush personally and his allies.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
http://www.newaus.com.au/042106_media_bin_laden.html
-----------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder. ==> The media lied about President Bush and the 9/11 Commission findings
Re: White House Admits Bishop Bush Lied To Start War
Re: White House Admits Bishop Bush Lied To Start War
OT: 'You lied, they died,' US parents tell Bush
Horrible: Blackmailed to drop news report, victim lied to
Re: John Kerry's president LIED about WMDs
VETS CHARGE: KERRY KILLED FLEEING TEEN; LIED FOR MEDAL! TYPICAL LIBERAL!!!!!!
Matt Druudge: AWOL Lied About His Service Record
| "Dr" Jason Gastrich's Committment to Free Speech (Or: How He Lied About Ed Babinski)
Condy Lied, Pt 2
Poll Majority of 94% Believe That Bush Lied
OT: Shrub lied again
Oops, Michael "Drownie" Brown Lied About His Resume to Congress. UNDER OATH (GOP, the Party of Treason)
Oops, Email Reveals that GOP Congressman LIED (GOP, The Party of Treason)
Oops, AWOL Lied about PlameGate (GOP, the Party of Treason)
|
|
|
