We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Links we recommend
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons


Charlatan’s Web: U.S. Media’s Baghdad Bobs Spin Saddam Capture
by Doug Schmitz
29 December 2003Saddam

The left-wing media have been working overtime to spin news coverage of the Hussein arrest.

    I was not surprised to see ordinary Iraqis cheering Saddam’s capture and firing rifles into the air.  What has been surprising is the negative media coverage and the shameless exploitation of the war for partisan political purposes that I’ve seen since returning from Iraq in September.
    It’s almost as if what we did over there never happened and doesn’t matter,” one of my staff sergeants told me.  “But what we did, and what the U.S. military is still doing, does matter, as the Iraqis whom I was privileged to know and befriend will tell you.

— Lance Cpl. John R. Guardiano, a field radio operator with the U.S. Marine Corps’ Fourth Civil Affairs Group and a civilian defense editor of Rotor and Wing magazine, on how hard it would now be for the media to deny the troops’ accomplishments in Iraq.

Given the December 14 historic capture of Saddam Hussein, Al Gore, Howard Dean and other disgruntled Bush-hating Democrats have got to be kicking up a lot of dirt – like angry little school boys – on their politically partisan playgrounds right now. 

Seeking to further politicize the war in Iraq – while showing substantial favoritism toward their fellow spineless Democrats, the U.S. left-wing media’s Baghdad Bobs also have been working overtime to spin news coverage of the Hussein arrest – and throwing around endless conspiracy theories as they become the willing mouthpieces of other degenerate Democrats; namely, Ted Kennedy and Jim McDermott.

On his December 15 broadcast, Sean Hannity said the Democrats couldn’t celebrate Hussein’s capture because their entire campaigns depend not only on economic failure, but also on U.S. setbacks in Iraq.  Staying true to form, the lockstep leftist media have duplicitously downplayed the emerging successes of the Iraqi war in a concerted effort to smear the Bush Administration for cleaning up the very messes left by the political and moral corruption of the Clinton Administration.

Feverishly re-scripting the Clinton legacy, these desperate Democrats and their willing media allies have been trying to re-write the historic capture by belittling its significance in this watershed moment in history.

At least the Bush Administration captured one mass-murdering terrorist.  That’s more than the Clinton Administration can claim, which took three passes on capturing and arresting Osama bin Laden, especially when Clinton was too embroiled in Monica-gate.

In effect, Hussein never feared the Clinton Administration because Clinton was an enemy-appeaser, much like Howard Dean, John Kerry and the ultimate military phony, Wesley Clark.  If they were in charge, they would probably drop a bomb, cut and run. 

In fact, Clark cut and ran in Somalia, leaving behind 18 U.S. soldiers, who were killed when their Blackhawk helicopters were shot down.  In the end, their bodies were dragged and paraded through the streets of Mogadishu.  Where was the disgraceful Clark, who claimed he never left one of his men behind?  In the Hollywood Left’s sanitized movie version, Bill Clinton and Clark’s blood-guiltiness was conveniently omitted. 

What’s more, where were Clark, Clinton and Gore when they knew about the one million Rwandans being slaughtered? 

These same pitiful Democrats, who have been screaming for months about Hussein’s whereabouts, are now resorting to re-vamping their discombobulated anti-war talking points as a means of looking patriotic, while trying to snag anti-American Left votes. 

This is especially true of NATO-worshipper Wesley Clark, the anti-military general – and the Clintons’ prized stalking horse – who continues to vacillate on foreign policy and economic issues, while abusing his ego-stroking platform to score political points – and concealing the important details about his own questionable military record.

Not only do these nine U.N.-obsessed Democrats look like complete fools, but their leftist media parrots also have exposed themselves as partisan hacks that care nothing about honestly informing the American news consumer concerning our national security.

Among the Democratic presidential candidates who’ll have to re-write their anti-war talking points, besides Dean and Clark, are John Kerry and Dick Gephardt.

“This president can’t find Saddam Hussein,” fumed the expletive-prone Kerry.

Gephardt blathered shortly before Hussein’s capture: “He can’t even find Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.  They’ve vanished.” 

The simple truth is the Far Left is angrier over the capture of Saddam Hussein than they ever were over this monster’s mass murder of thousands.  They are also reluctant to find guilt with Saddam Hussein and his murderous thugs who have physically, emotionally and psychologically scarred survivors of their barbarism for life.

The reality is: If Dean, Clark (another recent expletive-prone candidate), Kerry, Kucinich, Gephardt, Edwards, Sharpton and Braun were in charge, Saddam Hussein would definitely still be in power.  These spineless enemy-appeasers hide behind the U.N. as a ruse to make it appear that they would do something about terrorism, when, in fact, like Clinton, they wouldn’t lift a finger to stop terrorism.  Now, the leftist media are giving them free passes for their political treachery.

Here’s just a sampling of the leftist media’s acerbic reactions, albeit denials, of the capture of the former Butcher of Baghdad, as they belittle its historic significance:

The Boston Globe’s Derrick Z. Jackson, one of the most Far Left columnists in the elite media, on December 17, wrote this pro-Saddam screed, claiming:

“The invasion was still a lie.  The capture of Saddam Hussein changes nothing about that.  There were too many forked tongues in the road to his lair.  The way we removed the dictator, we became a global dictatorship,” Jackson ranted.

“With no weapons, no ties, and no truth, the capture of Saddam was merely the most massive and irresponsible police raid in modern times.  We broke in without a search warrant. Civilian deaths constituted justifiable homicide. 

“America was again above the law.  We have taught the next generation that many wrongs equal a right.  In arrogance, we boasted, 'We got him!'  The shame is that we feel none for how we got him.  The capture of this dictator, driven by the poison of lies, turned America itself into a dictator.”

Since when is our U.S. military required to obtain a search warrant to flush out one of the world’s most-wanted brutal despots in recent history?  These so-called journalists, like Jackson, prove once again that they are nothing more than card-carrying members of the Blame-America-First crowd, who continually shames and dishonors the profession.   

But even Iraqi journalists have recognized the historic significance of the capture, much to the chagrin of our U.S. media elites, reported WorldNet Daily.com on December 14:

“Saddam, who admired Stalin and emulated Hitler, did not go down in a violent blaze of glory.  He didn’t fire the pistol he carried or even make a fist.  He cowered below the earth until our soldiers dragged him out.  Even as dismayed pundits struggled to find a dark lining in this enormous silver cloud, the people of Iraq erupted in cheers.  To the horror of their European colleagues, Arab journalists could not stop shouting, “Death to Saddam!” as the monitors in Baghdad showed a broken prisoner having his scalp inspected for lice.”

Newmax.com recently said of Jackson’s anti-American tirade:

“The elitists of American journalism just can’t understand why Americans despise them.  But we’ll give Jackson the benefit of the doubt: Surely his latest rant is a parody of a satire of a spoof of the addled brain of a blame-America-first leftist pseudo-intellectual.”

Like Dean and his other Democratic presidential wannabes (again, with the possible exception of Lieberman), if Jackson had his way, Saddam and his two demon seeds would still be throwing blind-folded Iraqis off five-story buildings; they’d still be murdering, torturing, raping, executing and grinding up innocent people in shredders; and they’d still be filling the endless mass graves our troops are discovering on a daily basis.


Los Angeles Times’ columnist Robert Scheer, the Left Coast version of the New York Times’ Paul Krugman, blathered that it was the U.S. who had the burden of making sure Saddam Hussein has a “fair” trial, calling Hussein “a high-level prisoner of war:”

“The capture of Saddam Hussein is being treated as a celebratory occasion, but it is one that the Bush administration might come to regret,” the Far Left, Bush-hating columnist claimed on December 16.

“The onus is on the United States to accord this former ally and head of state all the rights due a high-level prisoner of war, as established at Nuremberg and The Hague…

“We have lost valuable time and resources in the struggle to quell al-Qaeda and similar groups while creating a morass in Iraq.  Hussein’s removal was a politically motivated exploitation of our nation's anger and fear over the 9/11 attacks."

While Scheer is busy blaming Bush for stopping a murderous tyrant, Clinton, who never did anything to confront terrorism, is still walking the streets, virtually innocuous to his dereliction of duty in thwarting the very terrorist cells we are now facing.

Speaking of anti-war rants, Truthout.org, an anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Democrat Web site, has shown more loyalty to Saddam Hussein than they have toward our U.S. troops, who are risking their lives to protect the very freedoms they enjoy. 

This Far Left cyber trash heap not only posts the anti-establishment rants of morally bankrupt New York Times lefties Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert, it also features the psychotic outbursts of Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd, the former domestic terrorist who was once a high-ranking member of Ku Klux Klan.  Yet, the pro-Democratic media have never objectively reported on Byrd’s toxic invectives.

Truthout.org also seems to take a sadistic pleasure in posting U.S. casualties, anti-Bush caricatures and graphic pictures of wounded Iraqis and funerals of Islamic terrorists, in order to propagate their hatred toward the Bush Administration’s war against terrorism.

Managing editor William Rivers Pitt, a Bush-hating leftist, claimed that Saddam was never the problem and – like the rest of his leftist media buddies – thinks the capture of the brutal despot has no significance to the war on terrorism because allegedly “we got the wrong guy:”

“Hussein was never a threat to the United States,” Pitt claimed.  “His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people.  The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen.”

But here again, Pitt’s buddy, Bill Clinton, had three opportunities to capture and arrest bin Laden, but decided it wasn’t politically expedient to his 1996 re-election bid, never risking the possible political fallout.  As a result, bin Laden still remains at large – whom the Far Left never before cared about capturing – with Clinton eventually opening the door to Sept. 11.  And where were the leftist media then?  They have never once held Clinton responsible.

Also, does it really matter if Saddam was the first animal we trapped before bin Laden, Mr. Pitt?  If bin Laden were captured first, the Far Left would be finding the worst in that as well.  What does matter is we have one of these most-wanted despots – and the Iraqis now know he’ll never return to terrorize them again. 


TomPaine.com, the government-subsidized, Bill Moyers-owned, Far Left Web site, recently interviewed New York Times leftist staff writer Chris Hedges, who was booed off the stage at Rockford (Ill.) College’s May commencement for his anti-war rant.

Responding to Steven Rosenfeld’s leading question about whether the media coverage of the capture was “sensational or nationalistic,” Hedges stated:

“Well, the word that I would use is simplistic.  In the sense that they, by playing up the capture, give the illusion that somehow – if not all – certainly a large part of our problems have been solved by taking in Saddam Hussein.

“I don’t think the resistance movement in Iraq has very much to do with Saddam Hussein at all.  And I think it obscures the fundamental issue, which is that Iraqis are chafing against U.S. occupation.  Having spent a lot of time in Iraq, I can tell you he was a deeply detested and feared figure.  The fact that he was removed doesn’t in any way mitigate the fact that most Iraqis do not want to be occupied by U.S. troops.”

However, based on Lance Cpl. John R. Guardiano’s aforementioned account, the Iraqi people clearly still want our U.S. troops to remain in their country for the sake of their security and stability, which therefore nulls and voids Hedges’ anti-war diatribes.

As Timeswatch.org noted when Hedges and Rosenfeld worried about Hussein justifiably being called a “rat” and a “rodent” in the press:

“A murderous tyrant is captured, leading the people he repressed for a quarter-century to celebrate.  Meanwhile, two writers fret over the harm done by animal clichés used to describe him.  One is a left-wing activist [Rosenfeld], the other a foreign affairs reporter [Hedges] for the country’s most influential newspaper.  The most depressing thing is, Timeswatch.org can’t tell the difference [between who is the left-wing activist and who is the foreign affairs reporter].”


David Corn, staff writer for The Nation, a Far Left magazine, claimed that Saddam’s capture wouldn’t have a direct impact on the insurgency, despite the subsequent capture of nearly 80 of them, due to intel obtained in the spider hole:

“The celebratory tone accompanying much of the media coverage of Hussein’s apprehension, though, may be more triumphal than warranted.  There was no immediate indication Hussein’s arrest would have a direct impact on the insurgency.  The circumstances in which he was discovered did not suggest he was playing a day-to-day leadership or coordinating role in the anti-America insurgency.”

Corn, echoing the hollow assertions of Couric, disregards the fact that Clinton was unwilling to “get” Hussein, when he “illegally” bombed Iraq in 1998 without congressional or U.N. approval.  Like the rest, Corn also failed to note that Hussein’s capture yielded nearly 80 of these insurgents that were directly targeting U.S. troops. 

Corn, by the way, is also one of many liberal employees of Fox News – debunking the notion that Fox News only hires conservatives; unlike CNN, which apparently only hires liberals (with the exception of Tucker Carlson).


“Today” show host Katie Couric, who, at the height of the Iraq war in April, wanted to know if Saddam “hopefully escaped to Syria,” argued on her December 15 show that his capture really didn’t matter at all.

Speaking with Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Couric blathered:

“It appears that Saddam Hussein was in no position to be calling the shots or orchestrating the efforts against U.S. troops in Iraq.  So, militarily, how much of the enemy’s capabilities have really been degraded by this capture?”

Not allowing Lt. Gen. Sanchez to fully explain the strategic importance of deposing Hussein, in terms even she could understand, Couric injected:

“Because this is more symbolic, General Sanchez, do you think?  At the same time, I believe it will be a concrete victory on the battlefield as [the insurgents] begin to reassess what their future holds.”

But remaining unyielding to the reality that Saddam’s arrest provided one of many breakthroughs in strengthening U.S. military efforts in Iraq, Couric wondered if Saddam’s capture “may actually incite various members of the insurgency” and “create an environment in which there is more violence against U.S. troops.”

Despite crucial documents found in Saddam’s briefcase that led to the capture of the nearly 80 former regime insurgents, while providing essential intel, Couric, like Corn, remained unconvinced.


Reporting from Iraq, CBS News’ “60 Minutes II” co-host Scott Pelley interviewed Col. James Hickey, who was among U.S. Army 4th Infantry Division soldiers who captured Hussein.  Col. Hickey immediately called Maj. Gen. Raymond Odierno about the captured rat. 

When Pelley asked Col. Hickey what his first reaction was when he captured Hussein, Col. Hickey replied: “That’s great.  I called Gen. Odierno on my secure telephone from my vehicle and told him we captured Saddam Hussein.”

Appearing to be in a state of unbelief, Pelley immediately prodded Col. Hickey: “Oh, come on.  Really?”

Apparently, Pelley is among the many journalists not particularly celebrating the news.


Media Research Center noted that ABC News’ Barbara Walters has come out against executing Saddam Hussein, arguing on December 16’s “The View” that it would evidently give the U.S. an opportunity to show the world our compassion for mass murders:

“We condemn the suicide bombers, we condemn those who have no regard for life, and Lord knows this man deserves, you know, the greatest punishment, but I just sort of feel this would be a chance for us to show the regard for life that this man didn't have.”

Of course, co-host Meredith Vieira, agreed with Walters.


In the December 22 issue of Newsweek, Jonathan Alter genuflected:

“From here on, beating the ever-changing expectations spread gets tricky, abroad and at home.  Bush must now show rapid progress toward security and democracy in Iraq, or end up worse off than he was before Saddam was apprehended.”

But, on the contrary, what partisan Democrats and their media friends fear the most is that Bush’s increasing successes in the war against terrorism and the current economic boon will only further cement his likely re-election.  This is why the Democrats and their media partners in crime are distorting the facts – for their own selfish political agendas.

After delivering a relatively fair account of the demonic despot’s capture, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas couldn’t resist waxing cynical of the Bush Administration’s resolve:

“The political value for George Bush will be measured by the minutes on the evening news.  The details of torture and oppression will be nightly reminders of why Bush felt justified in invading Iraq.  Saddam’s capture sent the Democrats scrambling, warning that the celebrations were wonderful but could be short-lived.”

Thomas, however, was right on one point: He and his left-wing media cohorts have always “measured by the minutes on the evening news” the political value of George W. Bush.  The truth is, they are so blinded by their petty, partisan hatred of Bush that they can’t see past it to objectively report the actual news.


Reuters Baghdad correspondent Joseph Logan was apprehensive about whether our troops should stay in Iraq – and about whether they were even making a difference:

“Joy at the capture of Saddam Hussein gave way to resentment toward Washington Monday as Iraqis confronted afresh the bloodshed, shortages and soaring prices of life under U.S. occupation.”


ABC’s “Good Morning America” co-host Charles Gibson, interviewing NYU constitutional law professor Noah Feldman, worried about how a trial for Hussein could be “embarrassing for the United States” because we allegedly “supported him for so long.”

Echoing Gibson’s comment was ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran, who recalled how “Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld was over in Baghdad meeting with Saddam Hussein years ago” and “there are allegations that the United States provided weapons to Saddam Hussein’s regime during the Iran-Iraq war.  And all that could spill out in a big show trial.”

Nightline anchor Chris Bury repeated the boilerplate line on December 16: “Saddam Hussein has not always been America’s enemy, and as Nightline correspondent Deborah Amos reports, that might prove embarrassing in any trial.”
Again, no mention was given of Bill Clinton’s duplicity regarding Hussein’s capture.
The Federalist
gave last week’s “Non Compos Mentis” Award to Peter Jennings, who commented:
“[T]here’s not a good deal for Iraqis to be happy about at the moment.  Life is still very chaotic, beset by violence in many cases, huge shortages.  In some respects, Iraqis keep telling us life is not as stable for them as it was when Saddam Hussein was in power.”  
According to The Federalist, Jennings was responding to this “analysis” by ABC’s Martin Seemungal, reporting on the “mood in the street” in Baghdad:
“They [the Iraqi people] feel cheated.  They’re essentially saying that it would have been much better, they would have been happier to see him fight because it would have justified the fear that they had for him for these so many years.”
Later, Jennings opened World News Tonight’s Dec. 14 broadcast by saying: “After ten months hunting him, in the end, the man who has gone from American ally to American nemesis, surrendered without a fight.”

Still defending Saddam Hussein, while belittling U.S. coalition forces, Jennings also neglected to report the open jubilation of thousands of Iraqis who marched in the streets in celebration over his capture – nor did be credit Bush or our troops for the coup.

Jennings, however, finally admitted on his December 15 broadcast: “There are moments in history when good triumphs over evil and this was clearly one of them.”

But returning to his leftist script, Jennings managed to get in this final jab: “But no one believes it will mean an end to the war and the violence continued in Iraq today.”

In addition, Jennings also suppressed his own network’s poll that showed an increase in Bush’s job approval rating since the capture of Iraq’s demon-possessed despot.


Long known as one of CBS News’ most negative reporters in Iraq, according to Ratherbiased.com, Baghdad correspondent Kimberly Dozier outrageously proclaimed:

“Saddam Hussein gave Iraqis dignity and pride.  He became a symbol of defiance across the Arab world.”

Ratherbiased.com also noted that Dozier “continued her behavior, worrying that Iraqis may be killed by ammunition fired by ecstatic Iraqis:”

“I imagine tonight across Baghdad that we might see a lot more of this celebratory gunfire when the sons of Saddam were killed, Uday and Qusay, several people were injured and killed by falling gunfire when celebrations broke out throughout the city.  So we’ll wait, watch and listen.”

Dozier should be more concerned about insurgents attacking our troops than the thongs of celebrating Iraqis finally free after over three decades of tyranny.


Boston Globe staff writer Charlie Savage, in his December 16 story, proclaimed:

“The coming trial of Saddam Hussein will blanket world media with the daily evocation of decades of atrocities, potentially recasting the Iraq war from a campaign rationalized by the still-unproven threat of weapons of mass destruction to a moral undertaking justified by ending his regime’s massive human rights abuses.”

Notice that Savage referred to Saddam’s 30-plus years of murders as “massive human rights abuses,” instead of calling them what they were – mass murder!


“60 Minutes” co-host Lesley Stahl on December 14, expressed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld her strangely passionate concern for Saddam Hussein’s  “humane” treatment:

“Let me raise the whole question, for lack of a better term, torture. Let’s say he’s not forthcoming. Would we deprive him of sleep, would we make it very cold where he is, or very hot?  Are there any restrictions on the way we treat him to get him to cooperate more than he has been?”

After the millions of innocent people he gassed, slaughtered, imprisoned, raped, tortured and executed, Stahl is now worried about whether Saddam Hussein is comfortable in his new surroundings, as well as his prison garb? 

Maybe Stahl can knit him sweater before he fries in the lowest bowels of hell.


On December 15, CBS’s Hannah Storm prepped Bush critic, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, about how Saddam’s capture presents an opportunity to pursue Biden’s propagated quest to “internationalize” the effort:

“There is a growing chorus on Capitol Hill now urging the Bush administration to use Saddam Hussein’s capture as an opportunity to internationalize the war effort in Iraq (which is code for U.N. support).  And one of those voices belongs to Sen. Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.”   

That “growing chorus on Capitol Hill,” Ms. Storm, has done more for the war against terrorism than your fellow Democrats ever have.


In his December 16 story, New York Times reporter Ian Fisher referred to Saddam as “Mr. Hussein” 11 times in his story, and claimed Bush’s national address “confirmed” the ongoing violence:

“His warning seemed confirmed in the rubble, shredded cars and body parts at the sites of the two bombings.  One was at a station where United States military investigators work, but they had not yet arrived.

“[The Army announced Tuesday that an American soldier had been killed Sunday when his military vehicle hit a roadside bomb near Baghdad, Agence France-Presse reported.]”

Fisher cited information gleamed from a newspaper out of France, who was a strong opponent to the Iraqi war.


In his December 16 story, “After 12 Years, Sweet Victory: The Bushes’ Pursuit of Hussein,” New York Times reporter Todd Purdum propagated a conspiracy theory:

“The effort to get Saddam was not carried out in the interests of national security and restoring peace in Iraq, but instead was nothing more than the result of a grudge match between Saddam and the former President Bush and his son, the present White House occupant.”

Continuing the Saddam vendetta conspiracy theory, Purdum wrote:

“…The capture of Mr. Hussein in his earthen hiding place was the sweetest kind of vindication for a president who has earned worldwide skepticism and criticism – along with substantial praise – for his Iraq policy.”

Purdum noted that the president “has earned” all that “worldwide skepticism and criticism,” an allegation which Purdum throws in for good measure, thus displaying the traditional hate-America attitude so common among liberals, Newsmax.com noted.


Knight Ridder reporter Dave Montgomery on December 18 obviously picked up on the same Saddam vendetta conspiracy theory and attempted to belittle the historic significance of the capture when he wrote:

“Although the victory clearly belonged to President George W. Bush, the capture of Saddam Hussein was also a vicarious triumph for the president’s father, decisively resolving an international standoff that began more than a decade ago, on the 41st president’s watch…

“In 1993, three months after the elder Bush left office, Saddam’s intelligence operatives are reported to have targeted the former president in a foiled assassination plot while Bush was visiting Kuwait.  His son would later describe the Iraqi leader as the “guy that tried to kill my dad.”


Following the leftist script of his fellow New York Times colleagues, columnist William Safire wondered why Saddam didn’t use his gun:

“I think Saddam is still Saddam – a meretricious, malevolent megalomaniac.  He knows he is going to die, either by death sentence or in jail at the hands of a rape victim’s family.  Why did he not use his pistol to shoot it out with his captors or to kill himself?  Because he is looking forward to the mother of all genocide trials, rivaling Nuremberg’s and topping those of Eichmann and Milosevic.  There, in the global spotlight, he can pose as the great Arab hero saving Islam from the Bushes and the Jews.”


In his December 16 USA Today op-ed, Stanley Weintraub inveighed:

“The video images of a haggard, unshaven Saddam were played over and over on televisions around the world.  The United States will pay a price in the Islamic world for our public debasement of Saddam.”

Weintraub continued to sympathize with Hussein by further opining:

“…Still, such a disrespectful display in a society that highly values personal dignity may generate sympathy for Saddam and disgust with us, as happened after the grotesque display of the bodies of his sons, Qusay and Uday.  (And, in fact, the violence against our troops increased after their deaths.)  When contrasted with the end of his sons, who fought overwhelming coalition forces to the death, how could Saddam, ignominiously captured without a struggle, appear any more weakened than he already was?”


Typically, the leftist media have ignored the one of the most important stories to come out in light of Saddam’s capture, according to World magazine editor Marvin Olansky: 

“The (London) Telegraph headline recently reported: “Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam.”  The gist: Iraq’s coalition government has uncovered documentary proof that Saddam was kept informed of the progress of Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

“Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, sent Saddam a handwritten memo on July 1, 2001, that summarized the “work programme” Atta had undertaken in Baghdad and noted that Atta’s  “extraordinary effort” demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be ‘responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”

Despite the mainstream media also being silent over the well-documented links to Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda (as reported by National Review’s Clifford May, who broke the 50-bulleted bombshell memo last month, linking the two), they remain bent on blaming America and Bush for trying to seal up the hornet’s nest of terrorism that the Clinton Administration allowed to grow.

With all these leftist writers and anchors, ranting and raving about the Bush Administration, while they conveniently gloss over the Clinton Administration’s do-nothing foreign policies that ultimately led to Sept. 11, the Democrats don’t have to worry about their Hillary-concocted “vast right-wing conspiracy” theory.

Clearly, they have plenty of leftist writers only too willing to disseminate their propaganda for them.

Doug Schmitz is a conse
rvative columnist who regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, BushCountry.org and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org.). © Doug Schmitz.  All Rights Reserved.

Email Doug Schmitz

Send this Article to a Friend