• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Richard Colwell of Parker writes:

In uncovering the media’s bias against U.S. involvement in Iraq, one only has to look at the source of the conflict. So much attention was given to Weapons of Mass Destruction (or lack there of), leading one to believe that it was the only excuse for going to war with Iraq. The fact is, there were 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions supporting this decision, including the mass torture of civilians and repeated attacks on U.S. aircraft over the no-fly-zone.
Now I’ve recently learned of a book, called “Saddam’s Secrets", that insists these weapons DID exist in Iraq just prior to the 2003 invasion. The author is a former Iraqi general, Georges Sada, who served as Vice Air Marshall under Saddam Hussein. In the book, he describes in detail how Saddam’s regime “transferred chemical agents from Iraq to Syria” by converting two Iraqi Airways Boeings into cargo planes. The 56 flights, according to Mr. Sada, attracted little attention because they were thought to be providing relief to Syria after a dam collapse in 2002.
Of course, without physical evidence, Sada’s book would have drawn its own critics — assuming it were ever brought out for debate. So then why is it that a former Iraqi general’s claims of WMD received such scant coverage (if any) from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN, while leftist millionaire Michael Moore and his so-called documentary about 9/11 enjoyed more attention than it deserved? There’s your bias.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

damn that evidence, comes back to bite ya everytime.

It is quite obvious that selected anti-war rhetoric like Sean Penn's is preferable to another point of view from someone who just might know the truth. Americans must not be subjected to anything that just possibly would let them think for themselves.

Mollypitcher

for the love of god. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact that Saddam had WMD prior to our invasion - the US gave them to him.

And guess what Dick - the media is not the only one biased against our involvement in Iraq. Approximately 75% of the nation is biased against it.

Approximately 75% of the nation is ill informed. Basing the National Security on politically inspired popularity polls is a sure fire formula for disaster. The populist pablum is not inspiring to those of us who have the best interests of our country at heart.

If I took a poll of a thousand people today and asked the question "what is 1591", I doubt I would find ten who know what it is.

If you need to see the polls reverse in favor of the President, all you need to do is release the good news and positive results of what is going on in Iraq. Those running to get on the bandwagon of the winner will be easily seen.

By the way, your 75% of the population figure is no longer valid. The results of a new poll placed against one of a week ago shows and increase of more than 20% shifting back to the positive side of our War on Terror.

The public is fickle and poorly informed.

Mollypitcher

Now Molly,

How can you say the public is fickle and poorly informed? Don't they have Rush Limbaugh to listen to?

How about the general who commented that. "Shooting people is fun"?

And how about the dozens - at least - who keep insisting that those WMDs certainly were there, right under our noses, all the time, just sort of "invisible" to those who didn't BELIEVE - like the Emperor's new clothes.

Oh! Yeah! Sorry. The public just doesn't understand that THEY don't have any business criticizing the "Commander in Chief", since THEIR rights have to be "given up" in favor of "National Security".

Where have we all heard that before?

Better your so-called "populist pablum" than conservative demagoguery and b----s--- any time!

Hate to break up your fantasyland Molly, but Iraq does not equal the war on terror.

Why does the media insist on promoting the negative side and ignores the great strides our military has made in Iraq. You can't use the standard excuse of ratings or circulation. The public would actually appreciate the positive aspect if they were given the option.

But instead in the NY Times today they have an article highlighting the negative impacts of the surge, showing how it has caused the jails to become overcrowded from all the crackdowns in Baghdad. The interview even includes some human rights advocates who are voicing their complaints. Tsk, tsk.

If it doesn't bleed, they won't read!

Why don't you guys show us some of the positive stories out of Iraq? Wasn't it Neil Cavuto on Fox who said he was going to start giving more time to the positive news out of Iraq? Where is it? Maybe you guys should be the change instead of bitching.

And - Mollypitcher - you should think about a name change. The real Molly Pitcher carried water to insurgents fighting against King George. You carry water FOR King George. Big difference.

Do any of the Lefties remember that Bubba Clinton invaded Kosovo 8 years ago this month? No US Congress approval....no UN approval. He also attacked Iraq in December 1998 (Operation Desert Fox) to destroy Iraq's WMD....this was just a couple days before he was impeached, but no 'wag the dog'....HA! Don't forget Bubba also blew up an aspirin factory in the Sudan cuz it was supposed to be making WMD. Clinton lied, people died...just not Americans!

Clinton lied, people died...just not Americans!

Posted by BuffDriver on March 28, 2007 03:08 PM

Americans not dieing is a good thing

Didnt we invade Kosovo to stop brutal genocide caused by a ruthless dictator? Wasn't that one of Bush's reasons for invading Iraq?

So, on one hand, repubs complain that Clinton caused 9/11. On the other hand, they complain about wag the dog. Which is it? Was he too aggressive in sudan, or not aggressive enough with Desert Fox?

once again.....bbbbut....buuuttt....but...Clinton did it!

Cinton didn't do anything about terrorists

I was wrong, Clinton did pardon them

Yes, Clinton did do something about the terrorists! He helped them by dismantling the military and by gutting the intelligence services.

Has President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other member of the Bush administration ever mentioned Georges Sada when they were claiming that Saddam had WMDs? I am not aware of any mention. Wonder why not?

I could not find any evidence that Sada has ever been interviewed by O'Reilly, Limbaugh, or any other conservative spokesperson. Why?

Who did interview Sada? Why, none other than the arch conservative Jon Stewart on The Daily Show.

Sada never had any official capacity in Iraq after 1991. Hardly an insider during the runup to the invasion. He claims he was jailed by Saddam in 1991.

He admits his information is second hand. He says he got his information from two pilot friends. He refuses to identify the two pilot friends.

Sada's story is not consistent with the Duelfer Report, a three volume work by the Iraq Study Group, which was put together by the CIA and the Pentagon to determine if Saddam had WMDs. It concluded that it was unlikely that Saddam moved WMDs to Syria.

And Clinton said he wanted to kill bin Laden but the CIA wouldn't let him.

Ah- the old "blame Clinton" defense. An oldie but a goodie!

He has been out off office for 6+ years. Time to accept responsibility for Bush. You won't find me blaming Bush for anything 6 years after his presidency, except for getting hit by Bin Laden again. You all remember him, right?

Let's see, This Sada fellow must surely be one of the Brothers Grimm, as in fairy tales, or Fox noise would give him his own show.
But to get back to the truth, how many of you have seen Anna Nicole Smith's casket? How many times? On EVERY mainstream media?
Be truthfull,now.
How many caskets of our dead soldiers, sailors, and marines have you seen? (not counting Pat Tillman, Of course).
NOW where's the bias, Dick? It sure ain't Liberal.
Wake up and smell the bullsh*t, cons.

Molly Pitcher: “Approximately 75% of the nation is ill informed. Basing the National Security on politically inspired popularity polls is a sure fire formula for disaster. The populist pablum is not inspiring to those of us who have the best interests of our country at heart.”

Allright, Molly. In your words, “Polls are a sure fire formula for disaster”. I would like to propose that “history” will reflect the positive and negative of a Presidency regardless, of the polls of current events.

Perhaps, you would care to read what some historians had to say about how they will document, the current occupant’s “legacy” in the history books when contrasted with former Presidents.

Granted, the source is 19 months however, it does provide one with insight into how “w” and his actions will be recorded for our future generations.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

After completely reading the article, I have only one question: How is it that some people can stand behind this President when, the majority of the people, in the world, think he is the worst President to ever serve this proud nation? Better yet, how can you think any one man will protect you and your family from another terrorist attack? Even Clinton couldn't make such a boast. So what exactly is it that you and others, who support bush, can prove to me and the world, that he has done to improve our world, daily lives, etc., etc. while protecting us from another terrorist attack. Remember, that he was unable to prevent the attacks of 9/11. He thought it best to read, “My Pet Goat”, instead of actually doing something to protect Americans from the real attack of 9/11 by terrorists.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/

POST A COMMENT

• 'Kid Nation' reality show a new low
• Rivers a shameful hire
• Too little news
• ‘Diesel’ fumes
• Unlocalized story a disservice to readers
• Riled up by Christian music
• Darling of the left
• Solutions too costly