Woo Doggie's! I heard from a friend of a friend's cousin's uncle that he read a statement on a website (he does not remember which one) that an AQ operative was seen to actually fart across the border into Iraq. Well, at least the wind carried it across the border. Anyway, that is link enough for me by God.

Frankly, I'm not sure who I'm more disgusted with right now. The 9-11 commission, or how the media reported their findings.

In statement 15, the 9-11 commission:

1. Gave a cursory examination of the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, which was of course completely ignored by the press,

2. then correctly concludes that they have no credible evidence linking Iraq to 9-11 vis-a-vis finanacial or material aid.

This is then reported in the press as, "Commission finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda!" I saw many headlines that read this way.

In fact, the headlines should have read, "Commission Finds no Link between Iraq and 9-11!" which we all for the most part have accepted a long time ago.

What's really lacking in the commission report is any mention of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who as we know from many reports in the news, is the Al Qaeda associate who is operating in Iraq today!

Even way back in Feb. 2003, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was the main focus of Powell's presentation to the UN, when he discussed Iraq's ties to terrorism:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/17300.htm

[I]Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.[/I]

The fact that the 9-11 commission staff statement 15, doesn't even consider the Zarqawi-Iraq connection is laughable at best, given that the man is operating in Iraq today, and was operating in Iraq even before the war began, after he fled from Afghanistan.

::tapping 9-11 commission credibility meter::

Nope. Still close to zero.

Regardless of the reasons given before the war, I do find it a little disturbing that, despite evidence to the contrary, and presenting no evidence of his own, the President keeps insisting that such a tie existed. It just makes him seem desperate and dishonest.

Um, Amy, beware of that "desperate and dishonest" bovine fecal matter, it tends to bounce back and stick all over your shirt. The Commission decided that Iraq had no connection to 9/11, based off the fact that while Atta was identified meeting with Iraqi intelligence officers in Europe, his cel-phone was used in Florida, and we ALL know that cel-phones can only be used by their owner.

The Commssion actually states in their report that Iraq had numerous contacts with al Qaeda, which was all Bush has ever asserted, not that there is conclusive evidence that Saddam supported, initiated, or was aware of the 9/11 attacks. He is, oddly enough, the only state leader in the world who praised the attacks, making support for them official policy for Iraq (being a dictator means your word is law, after all). That in and of itself is tantamount to a declaration of war, regardless of the previous offenses he had committed against the US and its allies.

I get the New York Times via email--mostly headlines every morning. This morning the buzz of course was on the commission findings. What I couldn't figure out was the top story was "there's no connection" then on the right hand side, several links about Bush/Cheney's statements of Al Qaeda/Iraq. What did they say? Where are the transcripts? Why didn't the Times publish the actual or many quotes and let its readers (supposed intellectual folks) decide for themselves? Hmmmm....

So, off I go to this article and that one not really being able to make any cohesive sense of it all. Then I remember what a very wise professor told me long ago--every peice of written word has an author with a bias, find the bias first, then read the piece with that in mind. Take what you need and leave the rest. If what you read seems far fetched (a Catholic priest discussing abortion for example), question the author and the piece.

I'm questioning, I'm questioning...

"…there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on biological weapons and chemical weapons, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization... The Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the '90s. That was clearly official policy."
-Dick Cheney, Meet the Press on 9/14/03

Well, OK then, as long as the administration wasn’t trying to give a false impression of the working relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq after 9-11 and as they were pursuing public support to preemptively invade Iraq. That would be a crime, wouldn’t it?

The ONLY one creating any "false impression" of what the gov't said has been the media.

The Administration's statements on Iraq have been careful and precise throughout. The media has sabotaged, and been sabotaged, by their own ignorance of history, their lack of knowledge or belief in logical thought, and their need for quick & sexy headlines. And that's leaving any bias out.

I have more than once throughout this process listened to a Presidential speech, and in the "analysis" immediately thereafter, the talking head manages to say several major things that are flat-out ass-backwards wrong regarding the speech we both just heard!

For example, you will hear reporters claim that the gov't said so-and-so (when they didn't) just as in the case in question headlines around the world are claiming that the 911 Commission said something in the report that they clearly didn't say. The proof is right there in front of us, in this very thread. Well, this is the way everything has been handled all along. The media and the Left are so used to living in lies that they can't even tell what the truth is anymore.

I see you and raise you one mushroom cloud.