Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (9175)	6/17/2004 8:53:22 AM
From: Jagfan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911 Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is true that the 911 Commission report actually say that there was no evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ... what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that there is no evidence that such a connection exists. This creates a bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911 Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never been made. So, what did George Bush say? He said that there is no question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission report, by the way, agrees. CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the news story this way: "One of the original justifications for war in Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the 9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally. This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include that bogus "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant. The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line knows that people -- voters -- will read the story and believe that Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work. boortz.com