Contributors
Michael Nevin Jr. - Contributor

Michael Nevin Jr. is a 3rd generation California law enforcement officer and freelance writer. Mike's writing explores many topics ranging from the War on Terror to issues facing America's police officers. Mike is a contributing writer for several Internet websites including ChronWatch, American Daily, Renew America.us, and Men's News Daily. He can be contacted at nevin166@comcast.net. [go to Nevin index]

Media Deception on the Iraq and al Qaeda Connections
And the bias escalates...
[Michael Nevin Jr.] 6/29/04

An interim report completed by staff of the 9/11 commission suggests that “no credible evidence” has been found linking Iraq to the specific attacks perpetrated by al Qaeda against the United States on September 11. The staff further opined there was no “collaborative relationship” between Iraq and al Qaeda. These statements are made in one paragraph of a 12-page report that actually makes for quite an interesting and educational read.

However, a few words from one paragraph are all that certain newspapers and certain political pundits want you to see. The New York Times (6/17/04) led the charge: “Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.” The Los Angeles Times (6/17/04) jumped in: “No Signs of Iraq-Al-Qaeda Ties.” And, not to be outdone, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial on 6/18/04 was entitled “The Iraq Myth.”

It is obvious that all three newspapers are actively supporting the Kerry campaign, but what remains unclear is why the editors think that Americans will agree with their conclusory headlines. Take, for example, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial: “One of the arguments used to justify the invasion of Iraq is fiction. In the months before the war, the White House nursed public misconceptions that Osama bin Laden and Hussein were in league.” This disingenuous statement may confuse the part-time news follower, but it won’t fly with readers of this column.

To be sure, the White House never said that Iraq was directly associated with the attacks of 9/11. Although current compelling evidence suggests that someday we’ll find that Rosetta stone, President Bush was careful not to make that case leading up to the Iraq war. During his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush stated: “This Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”

Bush continued, “Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein [emphasis mine].” This clearly spells out that Bush did not link Hussein and al Qaeda to the first go-around of terrorist attacks.

The staff of the 9/11 commission made this disputed claim: “There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.” What exactly were these non-collaborative contacts? Were they talking about the latest Michael Moore film perhaps? It’s important to recognize that this isn’t the Iraq—al Qaeda commission, it’s the 9/11 commission.

Stephen F. Hayes from The Weekly Standard has become a leading expert on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Over the course of several articles and a new book, Hayes’ research would lead any honest reader to the conclusion that serious ties were formed. It is naïve to think otherwise. The Clinton administration certainly believed it. According to the 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden by the United States was this striking statement: “...and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.”

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would weigh in on the matter during her Senate floor speech on 10/10/02 supporting the authorization to use force against Iraq. Senator Clinton reaches a conclusion consistent with the Bush administration: “He (Saddam Hussein) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Saddam Hussein offered room and board to many terrorists during his reign. Abu Nidal found asylum during his final years in Baghdad before being found dead of multiple gunshot wounds to his head (ruled a suicide by Iraq). Families of Palestinian suicide bombers in Israel were guaranteed $25,000 after successful attacks. And let’s not forget about the al Qaeda-linked barbarian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who continues to broadcast beheadings of innocent civilians. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war, but that must just be a coincidence. Remember—al Qaeda and Iraq have no ties!

It has long been clear that the “mainstream” media in this country more closely resemble a Fifth Column than Fourth Estate. Happily, most prudent Americans have come to use multiple sources for news gathering. And although the sting of scathing editorials masquerading as information may not outlive the upcoming elections, for the increasingly discredited major newspapers, the blowback from years of biased reporting will likely be felt far longer. CRO

copyright 2004 Michael Nevin Jr.

§