Comments on: Pentagon Report Confirms Saddam’s Regime Supported al Qaida

By: Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » BREAKING - Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 23:15:48 +0000

[...] first post: http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/03/15/pentagon-rpt-confirms-saddams-regime-supported-al-qaida/ Scott followed up after Mark Eichenlaub’s post went up: [...]

By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » » Americans deserve insight, not old news, on Iraq War, So Where Is It?

Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:27:25 +0000

[...] before the report was released, Warren Strobel (also of McLatchy Newspapers) wrote a grossly incorrect assessment of the report based on a single anonymous leak. His report was followed by others in the old media who reported on it without ever seeing it. [...]

By: The Baltimore Reporter

The Baltimore Reporter — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 02:52:44 +0000

[...] And within hours the (mainstream media) die had been cast. Saddam was not linked to al Qaeda went the theme. This one is definitely worth the read. Think about what it shows: NO ONE in the McLatchy Newspaper chain of editors, no one at ABC, no one at the New York Times, no one at CNN, no one at the Washington Post, no one at AFP, and no one at any of the blogosphere sites that posted the original article actually read the report. NONE. Old Media/traditional media outlets are supposed to be special because they have armies of fact checkers yet no one in any of these armies ever saw the actual report. The actual report contradicts the original article at almost every turn. [...]

By: Mark E.

Mark E. — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:16:07 +0000

Moneyrunner,
The plot is going to work too well if noone from the Pentagon corrects this guy though.

By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » » No Ties Between Saddam and Al Queda Network of Terrorist Groups

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:59:09 +0000

[...] This one is definitely worth the read. Think about what it shows: NO ONE in the McLatchy Newspaper chain of editors, no one at ABC, no one at the New York Times, no one at CNN, no one at the Washington Post, no one at AFP, and no one at any of the blogosphere sites that posted the original article actually read the report. NONE. Old Media/traditional media outlets are supposed to be special because they have armies of fact checkers yet no one in any of these armies ever saw the actual report. The actual report contradicts the original article at almost every turn. [...]

By: Moneyrunner

Moneyrunner — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:47:56 +0000

Perhaps this is a fiendish plot by someone in the Pentagon who has it in for Warren Strobel to make him look foolish by getting him to write a story that is the exact opposite of the actual report.

By: Mark E.

Mark E. — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:01:12 +0000

Good point Scott. My post is now up here:
http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2008/03/media_swings_and_misses_on_ida_1/

I tried not to hit the same points as you though I am sure I still did. Gonna do some more work now on the nuts and bolts in the actual report.

By: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup — Pirate’s Cove

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup — Pirate’s Cove — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:11:45 +0000

[...] report confirms links between Saddam and al Qaeda? Liberals have been wrong? Goodness. See Flopping Aces for the [...]

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:40:18 +0000

How much confusion and false spin could have been avoided if the White House and others simply referred to “the Al Queda network of terrorist groups” instead of just “Al Queda”? After all, Bin Laden and the other leaders of Al Queda (most of whom are members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad) are just the core. The name Al Queda even translates as “The Base” or “The Origin/start.” They are a network of terrorist groups not some club with a Girl Scouts of America chain of command. If people looked at the matter as a fight against a coalition of groups, then they’d see the connections perfectly clearly.

Amazing

I hope everyone gets a chance to read the report. It’s simply amazing.

By: Wordsmith

Wordsmith — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:33:51 +0000

From Mark's comment there:

There are repeated examples of Saddam's regime working with Islamic groups, including Ayman al Zawahiri (now al Qaeda #2) Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Were they not Islamic radicals? What about the Army of Mohammed? Ansar al Islam? The Islamic groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan? The Sudanese and other foreign jihadists? Were they not all Islamists?

And Jemaah Islamiyah and abu Sayyaf, and others, with ties to al-Qaeda. As an aside, I found this interesting, with reference to abu Sayyaf/al Qaeda: Aren't the distinctions of boundaries between terror groups, in some cases, rather blurred? One group getting absorbed/transformed into another? Islamic holy warriors freely migrating from one terror group to another? Affiliation to multiple organizations? And let's not forget that President Bush made it clear, early on, that this war went beyond simply one terror group:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." -President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.

By: Mark E.

Mark E. — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 05:42:21 +0000

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/29959.html

Comments section is now up at the McClatchy story guys. Please hop in.

By: Mark E.

Mark E. — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:42:59 +0000

Great piece Scott. I have linked you in a piece I am about to post.
There is no way Strobel from McClatchy would debate you on this. This is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of drive by journalism. Throw a BS grenade of a story into the MSM’s bloodstream and then run like hell so you don’t have to answer any questions.

By: The Troll

The Troll — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:09:54 +0000

The problem is there are to many like Salvage in Elected office on BOTH sides of the isle

By: Richard Romano

Richard Romano — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 20:02:36 +0000

Something tells me that salvage is pulling his own “handle” too much

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:37:50 +0000

Salvage unknowingly proves the entire point of my post: reading a headline and seeking political affirmation isn’t the same as looking for the truth. In fact, it’s more like begging to be misled. The poor guy didn’t even make it past the second line in my piece by piece dissection of the propaganda article. Apparently he was so put off by the obviousness of truth that contradicts his preferred gleeful idea that the war was unnecessary that he just took his toys and went home. My guess is that if someone else with a D next to their name, or if some uberleft/anti-Bush site has said Saddam had ties to Al Queda…he’d have believed it with no questions asked. After all, Hillary said it, and you can bet good money Salvage is one of those people who will pull the handle for her in the fall if she’s the nominee.