Alpine Summit

Friday, March 17, 2006

MSM Shows Their Bias... Again

For years now, the MSM has been operating under the assumption that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Now the Army releases 9 documents refuting the claim and ABC news, like a good news source, reports on them... with comments.

Following are the ABC News Investigative Unit's summaries of four of the nine Iraqi documents from Saddam Hussein's government, which were released by the U.S. government Wednesday.

The documents discuss Osama bin Laden, weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda and more.

The full documents can be found on the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office Web site:


Document dated Sept. 15, 2001

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghani informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghani Consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

-That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq.
-That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
-That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
-That the Afghani consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable -- i.e. an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document -- four days after 9/11 -- is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

I've said before that the "anonymous sources" thing is hardly reliable. It all depends on who is asking us to trust something is true. Given the MSM's track record, I'm not willing to believe on the face of it that "anonymous sources" cited by the media are of the same reliability as the "anonymous sources" cited by people who actually know what's going on.

My point is, though, that the MSM NEVER makes this same editorial comment when it comes to wanting us to trust their sources or the worldview of its editors. In fact, they never make that comment when something from questionable sources supports their worldview. Maybe they have seen the error of their ways and we can expect this kind of help from the editors for us to understand the context of all "anonymous sources." Right.