So, has everyone seen the media reports on the 9-11 Commission yet? Lemme give you a little taste.
From the LA Times: Despite Findings, Bush sees Iraq tie to Al-Qaeda
The Pittsburg Post-Gazette: "Saddam, al-Qaida Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panel's Conclusion at Odds with Administration."
There's much more. Just go to "Oh, THAT liberal media" and scroll down. Damn near every paper in the USA was trumpeting their headlines in big, bold letters. "COMMISSION FINDS NO TIES BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA!" But wait, what's that underneath? Those tiny letters? Here, let me get my microscope.. it reads "in September 11th attacks"!
And if you were lucky, those tiny letters were on the front page. Most of the time that part was buried at the very end. Here's the problem: Bush never stated that Saddam was behind the September 11th attacks. Nobody in his administration claimed that Saddam was behind the September 11th attacks. Their claim was that Saddam was aiding and abetting terrorists world wide, including Al-Qeada. Was he wrong? Andrew Bolt says no. As usual, all emphasis is mine.
This week also saw the release of two interim reports by the commission US President George W. Bush set up to investigate al-Qaida's September 11 attacks. In a little-reported passage, they warn: "Al-Qaida remains extremely interested in conducting chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks."
It had tried to buy uranium, the reports said, and had "accurate information" on a radiological bomb. It had also been "making advances in its ability to produce anthrax", and experts believed "the trend towards attacks intended to cause ever-higher casualties will continue".
This spectre, of course, is what drove us to invade Iraq. Not only did Saddam house and help terrorists, including Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Palestinian suicide bombers and a bomb-maker of the 1993 World Trade Centre attack, but his scientists worked on chemical and biological weapons up until the war, as the Iraq Survey Group now confirms. The day would surely come when Saddam's weapons and the terrorists who wanted them finally met.
This is what Bush, Britain's Tony Blair and our John Howard warned of. But now this history is being shamelessly rewritten in the media.
This week's 9/11 commission reports also said Saddam approached al-Qaida at least three times when it was based in Sudan, and again, it seems, when it was in Afghanistan.
Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden asked for training camps and weapons, but, the reports claim, "Iraq apparently never responded", and the talks "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship", although at least one Iraqi terrorist group did join his "broader Islamic army".
The reports for some reason don't discuss other reported links between Iraq and al-Qaida, but cautiously conclude: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida co-operated on attacks against the United States."
So there were links between Saddam and al-Qaida, not to mention other terrorists, but no proof (yet) of active collaboration or co-operation in the September 11 attacks.
This is almost word for word what Bush has long said.
The Left can ignore the truth all they want to. They can scream and shout and plug their ears in an attempt to avoid dealing with reality. But Saddam needed to go, not tomorrow and not next year and not when he finally keels over from a heart attack, but yesterday. He needed to go in 1991, and we sadly didn't do the job. We finally got around to it. But only the willfully ignorant and the brain damaged can ignore the links that Saddam had to terrorism. Only the truly deluded can ignore the danger that Saddam posed to the world in general and the USA in particular. And no matter what the Fifth-column, back-stabbing media says, only the wantonly idiotic can conclude that this is an "illegal war".
Do you get it yet?
Andrew Bolt found via Instapundit.