Where is the push on this story???
CNSNews.com - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com , show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders. One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda. Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States. Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.
Is it utter bullshit? Is it too hot to handle? Seems like the most important thing to come down the pike this year... Why isn't the MSM trying to disprove it? Are we all about image, now? No one gives a crap about any facts a-tall?!?!?
Hmmm. an earlier comment disappeared!
I had said that the probable reason this story isn’t getting traction is that CNS (formerly “Conservative News Service") is not considered a reliable source. Much like AP in the old days, and AFP still, a CNS story requires at least two more sources before anyone in the MSM will touch it. CNS can come up with a scoop, of course, but it’s more likely to come up with a poorly supported story. Nothing particularly nefarious about it.
CNS can help itself by doing better quality work.
Note: this is not to say that their story is not true here. It’s just that they do not have a reliable track record.
Posted by John on 10/07/04 at 04:28 AM
Next entry: Watchers Council
Previous entry: From Deep in a Chicago Cemetery Richard Daley is Applauding
