What? No liberal Slant in the media you say?Follow

The Clinton Administration said there was a link to Al Qaeda

Check out numerous sources there Smasharoo, the Times was the last article in the list of links. But don't read it, because then you wouldn't have to defend the Liberal side of the arguement.

Here are the sources.

The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.

Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.

THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...

Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.

"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."

The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything up to £500m has been whittled down to single figures ...

- - - - -

U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.

Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.

... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism." ....

- - - - -

The Observer. December 19, 1999.

Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam

The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour of fundamentalists.

By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad

... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo him to Iraq.

Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...

- - - - -

United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...

- - - - -

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.

BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE
By: From Beacon Journal wire services

DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:

... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq.

A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....

- - - - -

The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.

International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries

By Rich Hood

... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States....

- - - - -

Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.
HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN

Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a sideshow....

This thread was about the Liberal Slant in the media and when solid proof is provided that there is a slant you throw away the evidence that supports a sub topic that was a supposed link to OBL and Saddam during the Clinton years. The media was all over a OBL and Iraq link 5 years ago and now that the Bush is making the claim you and the rest of your slant are saying those news stories are irrelevant. Your revisionist style of history even in the face of facts from various stories is bogus Smash.

edited for: misspelling

Edited, Fri Jun 25 16:42:16 2004 by Stok

Hmmm... That sound familiar? Let me put this in your words:


OMG! During the Clinton administration, they allowed the media to believe that Al-queda and Iraq were working together. But now, they are saying that they really weren't working together afterall. But it's not their fault. It was the media who was "all over it before it was realized it was wrong"

Sound familiar at all Smash? That's the *exact* argument you are using to slam the Bush administration. You are saying that because they didn't actively prevent the media from printing information that later turned out to be incorrect, that they are somehow responsible.

The "slant" I'm pointing out is that after it was realized that the initial reports were incorrect, the media didn't slam the Clinton administration back in 2000 for it, or try really hard to find inconsistencies (OMG! They didn't deny a connection back then, and now they're saying one doesn't exist. They lied to us!!! really!).

Hmmm... That sound familiar? Let me put this in your words:
OMG! During the Clinton administration, they allowed the media to believe that Al-queda and Iraq were working together. But now, they are saying that they really weren't working together afterall. But it's not their fault. It was the media who was "all over it before it was realized it was wrong"


Put the crack pipe down, son. That's not even vaguely simmilar to the Bush administration intentionaly putting forth a story they knew was false. Barring clairvoyance, there was no way for the Clinton administration to know the indictment was false. Justice screwed up and when they realized it, they let people know.



Sound familiar at all Smash? That's the *exact* argument you are using to slam the Bush administration. You are saying that because they didn't actively prevent the media from printing information that later turned out to be incorrect, that they are somehow responsible.


No, they're responsible because they put forth information THEY KNEW to be false and did everything they could to see that it made into the press.

That makes them responsible.


The "slant" I'm pointing out is that after it was realized that the initial reports were incorrect, the media didn't slam the Clinton administration back in 2000 for it, or try really hard to find inconsistencies (OMG! They didn't deny a connection back then, and now they're saying one doesn't exist. They lied to us!!! really!).


Are you people logically challanged? Is that it? Is like a learning disability or something? The Clinton administration didn't deny a connection because it appeared at the time there was one. When it was discovered that it was a mistake they said "hey, that was mistake" The Bush administration started with an idea that had no factual basis, pushed it through their freindly media outlets, and still won't clarify that it was innacurrate without qualifying it.

It's not even VAGUELY simmilar.

Would you show us where this was stated by the Clinton Administration that they made a mistake about the Saddam and Al Qaeda connection. Thanks.


If I do, wil you admit to being wrong and misled by a right wing whacko newspaper?

Because otherwise it's a waste of my time when you could research it yourself.

I can't easily find it, the web is choked with 911 material.

You can take my word for it, or I'll yeild the argument, whatever makes you happy. I personally remember someone from Justice standing at a podium stating that they no longer thought the Iraq connection was valid, but finding that one press release is more effort than I feel like expending.

Assuming I'm remembering it incorrectly and it never happened, we're talking about a link that's over 11 years old. Hardly relevant to 911. The US had links with Bin Laden during the Regan years, does that make us complicit?

I said I'll yeild it. I will.

Do you really think an 11 year old line item from an indictment is valid, though?

Yeah, that's deep, man.

Have another bong hit for me.