Friday, July 23, 2010

Jonah Goldberg: An Open Conspiracy to Slant the News by Members of JournOList

When this story broke, the first thing that flashed across the thought process was wondering how many of the people involved had bothered to even join the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). The fact that SPJ exists along with their Code of Ethics is no secret. It is taught in Journalism Ethics classes in college and used around the Country in newsrooms. The idea of having a Code of Ethics is excellent. The problem is the journalists who don't follow it including editors.

Every last member of JournOlist has abdicated the Right of Freedom of the Press guaranteed by the Constitution. They took it upon themselves to slant the news for Obama covering up facts that might make him look bad. Is that news? Not even a little as most of the people supporting McCain who had done any investigation knew the media was on their knee pads for Obama and would say and do anything to protect him. That said, we never imagined they had an organization dedicated to protecting Obama with coordinating what to say and report which goes against every ethics rule for a journalist.

Ethics is the basic foundation of journalism and taught in every Journalism College/School in America. Students on school newspaper have more integrity than the people who belong to JournOlist. How many Journalism Professors are members of that list?

In case people are not aware, every Journalism student has to take a course in Ethics to graduate and in that course you will find the SPJ Code of Ethics which they are expected to adhere to when they start writing. At graduation several years ago the Dean of a Journalism College told each student if they didn't adhere to ethics in what they reported, he would hunt them down. He expected every one of the graduates to live up to the Ethics they had been taught.

What is the SPJ Code of Ethics and how does it apply to this situation?
The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of journalists, regardless of place or platform, and is widely used in newsrooms and classrooms as a guide for ethical behavior. The code is intended not as a set of "rules" but as a resource for ethical decision-making. It is not — nor can it be under the First Amendment — legally enforceable.

For an expanded explanation, please follow this link.

SPJ Code of Ethics

Download a printable copy [PDF]

PreambleMembers of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information....

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect....

Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know....

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other....

The SPJ Code of Ethics is voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals. The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society's members.
If every person associated with journalism had adhered to these SPJ Code of Ethics, something like JournOlist could not have happened. Over the years the bias in the media has gradually gotten worse as reporters and editors have taken to slanting the news and lying to suit their agenda. This time it was to elect Obama and not only was it slanted but they coordinated what to say which is why the news sounded like a bunch of mouthpieces all reading the same talking point papers. Little did we know they came from the same place -- JournOlist.

JournOlist seems to be nothing more than an extension of the Obama campaign to fool the American people into believing he was something he wasn't or the fact that he was extremely liberal, had been mentored by Communists, hung out with domestic terrorists, or went to a Black Liberation Church for 20 years with Rev Wright for starters. All swept under the rug including the fact that Bill Ayers wrote 'Dreams of My Father' and some of the recollections were Ayers not Obama's but why let the truth get in the way.

Any member of JournOlist working for a media operation, needs FIRED -- not resigned -- FIRED with no benefits and never be allowed to work in the field again. If they are a college journalism professor, they also need FIRED and blackballed from teaching journalism. Every last member of JournOlist abdicated their responsibility to the American pubic to report the news and act in an Ethical manner. The biggest question is if they are publishers involved along with owners of the news organizations.

Is the field of journalism totally corrupt? We don't believe so based on the experiences of a young journalist we know well who had an editor who was a stickler for facts. He may be a rare breed these days but we have to think that here in Middle America Journalism Ethics might be a lot better than in the cesspool of the East Coast starting with Columbia Journalism where a lot of these people graduated. Some real 'investigative' journalist might want to take a look at what is taught at Columbia or other of the prestige universities of the East Coast.

Jonah Goldberg has done an outstanding job of summing up what has happened. We agree with him that this is not new and not the smoking gun. Although we believe this episode of the liberal media goes to a new low even for the liberals.
Jonah Goldberg

July 23, 2010 12:00 A.M.

An Open Conspiracy To Slant the News

JournoList is a symptom, not the disease, of liberal media bias.

The JournoList has started to leak like an over-ripe diaper. Just in case you’ve been living in a cave, or if you only get your news from MSNBC, here’s the story. A young blogger, Ezra Klein, formerly of the avowedly left-wing American Prospect and now with the avowedly mainstream Washington Post, founded the e-mail listserv JournoList for like-minded liberals to hash out and develop ideas. Some 400 people joined the by-invitation-only group. Most, it seems, were in the media, but many hailed from academia, think tanks, and the world of forthright liberal activism generally. They spoke freely about their political and personal biases, including their hatred of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.

That off-the-record intellectual bacchanalia has started to haunt the participants like an inexplicable rash after a wild party during Fleet Week.

Last month, David Weigel, a young Washington Post blogger hired to report on conservative politics, ostensibly from a sympathetic perspective, left the Post thanks to his damning statements on JournoList (conservatives are racists, Rush Limbaugh should die, etc.).

Now the diaper is coming off entirely. Perhaps stretching the diaper metaphor too far, what’s inside JournoList may stink, but it’s no surprise that it does. JournoList e-mails obtained by the Daily Caller reveal what anybody with two neurons to rub together already knew: Professional liberals don’t like Republicans and do like Democrats. They can be awfully smug and condescending in their sense of intellectual and moral superiority. They tend to ascribe evil motives to their political opponents — sometimes even when they know it’s unfair. One obscure blogger insisted that liberals should arbitrarily demonize a conservative journalist as a racist to scare conservatives away from covering stories that might hurt Obama.

Oh, and — surprise! — it turns out that the “O” in JournoList stands for “Obama.”

In 2008, participants shared talking points about how to shape coverage to help Obama. They tried to paint any negative coverage of Obama’s racist and hateful pastor, Jeremiah Wright, as out of bounds. Journalists at such “objective” news organizations as Newsweek, Bloomberg, Time, and The Economist joined conversations with open partisans about the best way to criticize Sarah Palin.

Like an Amish community raising a barn, members of the progressive community got together to hammer out talking points. Amidst a discussion of Palin, Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: “Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get.” Time’s Joe Klein admitted to his fellow JournoListers that he’d collected the listserv’s bric-a-brac and fashioned it into a brickbat aimed at Palin.

Many conservatives think JournoList is the smoking gun that proves not just liberal media bias (already well-established) but something far more elusive as well: the Sasquatch known as the Liberal Media Conspiracy.

I’m not so sure. In the 1930s, the New York Times deliberately whitewashed Stalin’s murders. In 1964, CBS reported that Barry Goldwater was tied up with German Nazis. In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled 2,700 journalists at 621 newspapers and found that journalists identified themselves as liberal by a factor of 3 to 1. Their actual views on issues were far more liberal than even that would suggest. Just for the record, Ezra Klein was born in 1984.

In other words, JournoList is a symptom, not the disease. And the disease is not a secret conspiracy but something more like the “open conspiracy” H. G. Wells fantasized about, where the smartest, best people at every institution make their progressive vision for the world their top priority.


The conservative movement at least admits it is a movement (even though conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1 in this country). Establishment liberalism, not just in the press but also in the White House, academia, and Hollywood, holds power by refusing to make the same concession. “This isn’t about ideology. . . . We just call them like we see them. . . . We don’t have an agenda.

”The open conspiracy that perpetuates that lie is far more pernicious than any chat room.—

Read More at: National Review

Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

After Two Years, the House Panel Charges NY Rep Rangel with Ethics Violations

You read the headline right -- took two years to get this far on the Rangel Ethics Violations when the investigation should have been over a long time ago. Did Charlie Rangel just get tossed under the bus by Obama and Pelosi?

The preliminary investigation should have been a slam dunk from all the facts that came out. Guess what Pelosi says about ethics and what she does is two different things until facing the upcoming election where prospects for the Dems do not look good. All of a sudden she cares about the Rangel Ethics complaint. Too late because voters know if the Dems were looking really good in November, these complaints would not have seen the light of day.

Pelosi and Obama are no longer fooling people -- they will throw anyone under the bus to keep their power and their Government planes!

House Panel Charges NY Rep. Rangel With Ethics ViolationsUpdated: 12 minutes ago, June 22, 2010

Larry Margasak AP
WASHINGTON (July 22) -- A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, dealing a serious blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and complicating Democrats' election-year outlook.

The panel did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in seniority. The charges by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that a public airing of Rangel's ethical woes will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to "drain the swamp" of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.

A House panel on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel, the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, with ethics violations.

Responding to the charges, Rangel said in a statement, "I was notified today, two years after I requested an investigation, that the Ethics Committee will refer the allegations reviewed by an investigations subcommittee to a subcommittee that will review the facts. I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media."

Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said, "The action today would indicate that the independent, bipartisan ethics committee process is moving forward."

Republicans immediately seized on the case. House GOP leader John Boehner said the charges were "a sad reminder of Speaker Pelosi's most glaring broken promise: to drain the swamp in Washington."

Read More at: AOL News

But I (White House) Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking for (Understatement)

Mike Pence, Chair, House Republican Caucus:

But I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For

“The White House has announced a total of 172 trips outside Washington, D.C., in which administration officials have discussed the stimulus package and its economic impact in the year and a half since the package was signed.” (Wall Street Journal, 7/21/2010)

Unemployment Rate: 9.5% (BLS, June 2010)

Taxpayers could save a lot of money if someone would ground Obama and his Administration from taking Air Force planes. They are going to wear out our VIP fleet at this rate. Who is doing the job in DC with them gone -- on second thought it might be cheaper to never have any of them in DC to spend our tax dollars. All that talk by Obama and the members of his Administration and the Stimulus is still as much of failure today as it would have been without all the trips.

You grow the economy by cutting taxes but NO this Administration wants to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire and all of us be taxed at higher levels. The audacity of them to say that the Republicans wanted the tax cuts to expire in ten years when, in fact, it was the threat of a Democrat filibuster that kept them becoming permanent. Republicans did not have 60 seats in the Senate at that time. In fact, it was a 50/50 Senate when President Bush took office.

Even the fact that President Bush was able to get all these tax cuts was minor miracle in itself with the Senate evenly divided. It shows what can be done when you have a President without an ego versus the narcissist who is President today and loves nothing better than to continually slam Republicans. Worst atmosphere maybe ever in the Congress as the Democrats ram their legislation through with having such large numbers.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Conflicting Obama answers on NAFTA meeting

By: Carrie Budoff Brown

March 4, 2008 10:30 AM EST

SAN ANTONIO, Texas – For four days after a news report alleged that Sen. Barack Obama’s economic adviser had told Canadian officials to ignore the Democrat’s tough talk on trade deals, the campaign gave incomplete – and sometimes misleading – explanations of whether a meeting had even taken place.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Monday night that the campaign had known of the meeting between adviser Austan Goolsbee and Canada’s consul general in Chicago since a Canadian television network, CTV, first reported the interaction last Wednesday.

“When they reported it, we were aware of it at that point,” Burton said.

Burton and other campaign aides – even Obama himself – vociferously denied the substance of the report, which alleged Goolsbee had given back-channel assurances to Canada that the Illinois senator’s call for reopening labor and environmental rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement was merely political posturing.

But for days, the campaign was less-than-forthcoming on a specific detail: Had a meeting actually occurred?

“Well, the Canadian ambassador issued a statement saying that that story was absolutely false. There had been no such contact,” said Susan Rice, an Obama foreign policy adviser, on MSNBC’s “Tucker” show Thursday. “There had been no discussions on NAFTA. So we take the Canadians at their word . . . Period.”

Also Thursday, Goolsbee told ABC News that he “would not confirm or deny meetings with anyone.” Yet he hinted at an interaction, saying Canada’s consul general contacted him “at one point to say ‘hello’ because their office is around the corner.”

David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, was asked Friday by reporters to comment on the conversation reported on Canadian television.

The story is just not true. Obama's position on this is very clear. Our campaign and the ambassador have been very clear on this; it did not happen,” Plouffe said, appearing to tailor his statement to only address elements of the initial Canadian TV story that had been discounted.

The Canadian network tweaked its initial story last week to reflect that Goolsbee had spoken with the consul general in Chicago, not the ambassador in Washington, as it was first reported. It is also appears now that the Canadian officials, not Goolsbee, initiated the contact.

Despite Obama's promises to run as a transparent and straight-talking candidate, the campaign offered muddled responses that allowed the story to metastasize in the days leading up to a primary election in Ohio, where trade issues could prove decisive. Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton have attempted to appeal to voters with promises to renegotiate NAFTA.

The story gained clarity only after the Associated Press obtained a 1,300-word memo Sunday written by a consulate staffer that detailed the Feb. 8 meeting between Goolsbee and the Canadian consul general, Georges Rioux.

In an interview with the AP, Goolsbee disputed a portion of the memo that quotes him as saying that campaign rhetoric “that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

“That's this guy's language,'' Goolsbee said of the memo’s author, Joseph De Mora. “He's not quoting me.” By Monday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had weighed in as well, saying the government “regrets any implication” that Obama “has been saying different things in private than in public.”

Facing tough questioning from reporters in San Antonio, Obama said his flat denial last week of the accuracy of Canadian TV report “was the information I had at the time.” Aides said the denial referred to the report, not whether a meeting took place.

“The Canadian consulate in Chicago contacted one of my advisers, Austan Goolsbee, on their own initiative, invited him down to meet with them,” Obama said Monday. “He met with them as a courtesy. At some point they started talking about trade and NAFTA and the Canadian embassy confirmed that he said exactly what I have been saying on the campaign trail.”

Burton stood by the campaign’s handling of the story, saying the denials were in response to the “substance of the matter at hand” about whether someone representing Obama was consistent about his position on trade. “

At no point did we deny there was a meeting,” Burton said Monday, hours after Sen. Dick Durbin, a top Obama surrogate, denied the meeting on MSNBC. “We made it crystal clear to anyone who was covering it.”

Friday, February 29, 2008

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

Note: Following is a speech given by Barack Obama in Oct 2002 while a member of the IL Legislature about the Iraq war while speaking to an anti-war rally and now this same person wants to be President? BTW, this speech is on his website so you could say he approved this message!

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Note: My bold and highlighted

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Sadaam, Al Qaeda and 9/11

Note: Obama said the following today: "So I have some news for John McCain," he added, saying there was no al-Qaida presence in Iraq until President Bush invaded the country. Noting that McCain likes to tell audiences that he'd follow Osama bin Laden to the "gates of hell" to catch him, Obama taunted: "All he (McCain) has done is to follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq."

After those comments today by Obama, this website was set up to counter the spin of the Democrats like Obama on Iraq and other issues. The following information and links were provided to this site by Mary Beth Seaha. We want to thank her for doing all this research to provide us the links for our first post on this site. As these links prove Sadaam, Al Qaeda and 9/11 are connected. Obama said he gets his information from newspapers but must have missed the articles that have appeared in the media connecting dots. Must be a selective reader! Samantha

Sadaam, Al Qaeda and 9/11 FACTS:

The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment
The back-up to the actual document:

Fritz Hollings mentioned on the floor of the Senate that Iraq's state run newspaper knew exactly what was coming to the United States -- in July 2001 they published an article about it.

Saddam behind first WTC attack. October 18, 2001. Laurie Mylroie, Clinton anti-terrorism czar. PBS.

Families sue Iraq over 9/11. Thousands of 9/11 victims and family members sue Iraq based on evidence that Iraq knew the attacks were coming, approved the attacks, and supported Al Qaeda for a decade. The lawsuit also notes Iraq's involvement in the first WTC attack. September 5, 2002. CBS.

Why the Bush administration stopped the lawsuit against Iraq with regard to 9/11: "The administration does not want the victims of Sept. 11 interfering with its foreign policy," says Peter M. Leitner, director of the Washington Center for Peace and Justice (WCPJ). Leitner says the Bush administration may be concerned that if other victims of the Sept. 11 attacks also filed lawsuits and won civil-damage awards it would reduce Iraqi resources that the administration wants to use to rebuild the country. Leitner and others say this explains Bush's reticence at this time to report the convincing evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda that has been collected by U.S. investigators and private organizations seeking damages. "The [Bush] administration is intentionally changing the topic," claims Leitner, and sidestepping the issue that "Iraq has been in a proxy war against the U.S. for years and has used al-Qaeda in that war against the United States." Source

As for connections, the MSM has a very short memory...from news archives:
In in 1998, an Arab intelligence officer, who knows Saddam personally, predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis." The Arab official said these terror operations would be run under "false flags" --spook-speak for front groups--including bin Laden's organization.

Then there were the predictions by an Iraqi with ties to Iraqi intelligence, Naeem Abd Mulhalhal, in Qusay's own newspaper several weeks before the attacks that stated bin Laden would “demolish the Pentagon after he destroys the White House and ”bin Laden would strike America “on the arm that is already hurting.” (referencing a second IRAQI sponsored attack on the World Trade Center). Another reference to New York was “[bin Laden] will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra everytime he hears his songs.” (e.g., “New York, New York”) which identified New York, New York as a target. Mulhalhal also stated, “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." which references an airplane attack.

The Arabic language daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabic also cited the cooperation between Iraq, bin Laden and Al December 1998 editorial, which predicted that “President Saddam Hussein, whose country was subjected to a four day air strike, will look for support in taking revenge on the United States and Britain by cooperating with Saudi oppositionist Osama Bin-Laden, whom the United States considers to be the most wanted person in the world.” This info is in the link provided below. How could these people have had foreknowledge without Iraq being involved?
Source for this info (Warning...slow loading .pdf file. This was from a lawsuit filed against Iraq after 9/11...the court ruled against Iraq.)

There was also another lawsuit filed by the family of John O’Neill (a former FBI agent who captured Ramzi Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombings) after he died in the WTC on 9/11. His personal files from his years of traveling around the world investigating al-Qaeda are were used as evidence in the lawsuit. The evidence includes documents unearthed in the headquarters of the Mukhabarat (Iraq's intelligence service) and information gleaned from the interrogation of both al-Qaeda and Iraqi prisoners. (Link below). It also quotes Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA counter-terrorism chief, who stated in October 2000 that Iraq had been wanting to carry out terrorist attacks, and that the Iraqi military had been in contact with Osama bin Laden.
Click Here

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

Abu Nidal, September 11 and Saddam The terrorist network may be closer knit than we think

Weekly Standard: The Mother of All Connections

List of newspaper article in the 90's which mention the world's concern regarding the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam

Son of Saddam coordinates OBL activities

The AQ connection (excellent):

Western Nightmare

Saddam's link to OBL

NYT: Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate

Document linking them

Iraq and terrorism - no doubt about it

A federal judge rules there are links

Wall Street Journal on Iraq and AQ

Iraq and Iran contact OBL

More evidence

Saddam's AQ connection

Further connections

What a court of law said about the connections

Some miscellaneous stuff on connections

Saddam's Ambassador to Al Qaeda (February 2004, Weekly Standard)

Yes - it's NewsMax but loaded with interesting bullet points

Saddam's Fingerprints on NY Bombing (Wall Street Journal, June 1993)

Colin Powell: Iraq and AQ Partners for Years (CNN, February 2003)

The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connections (September 2003, Richard Miniter)

Oil for Food Scandal Ties Iraq and Al Qaeda (June 2003)

Saddam and OBL Make a Pact (The New Yorker, February 2003)

Al Qaeda's Poison Gas (Wall Street Journal, April 2004)

Wolfowitz Says Saddam behind 9/11 Attacks

Saddam behind first WTC attack - PBS, Laurie Mylroie

Growing Evidence of Saddam and Al Qaeda Link, The Weekly Standard, July 2003

Qusay Hussein Coordinated Iraq special operations with Bin Laden Terrorist Activities, Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club

The Western Nightmare: Saddam and Bin Laden vs. the Rest of the World, The Guardian Unlimited

Saddam Link to Bin Laden, Julian Borger, The Guardian, February 1999

The Al Qaeda Connection, The Weekly Standard, July 2003

Cheney lectures Russert on Iraq/911 Link, September 2003

No Question About It, National Review, September 2003

Iraq: A Federal Judges Point of View

Mohammed's Account links Iraq to 9/11 and OKC

Free Republic Thread that mentions some books Freepers might be interested in on this topic

The Proof that Saddam Worked with AQ, The Telegraph, April 2003

Saddam's AQ Connection, The Weekly Standard, September 2003

September 11 Victims Sue Iraq

Osama's Best Friend: The Further Connections Between Al Qaeda and Saddam, The Weekly Standard, November 2003

Terrorist Behind 9/11 Attacks Trained by Saddam, The Telegraph, December 2003

James Woolsey Links Iraq and AQ, CNN Interview, March 2004, Also see Posts #34 and #35

A Geocities Interesting Web Site with maps and connections

Bin Laden indicted in federal court, read down to find information that Bin Laden agreed to not attack Iraq and to work cooperatively with Iraq

Case Closed, The Weekly Standard, November 03

CBS - Lawsuit: Iraq involved in 9/11

Exploring Iraq's Involvement in pre-9/11 Acts, The Indianapolis Star

The Iraq/AQ Connection: Richard Minister again

Militia Defector says Baghdad trained Al Qaeda fighters in chemical weapons, July 2002

The Clinton View of Iraq/AQ Ties, The Weekly Standard, December 2003

Saddam Controlled the Camps (Iraq/AQ Ties): The London Observer, November 01

Saddam's Terror Ties that Critics Ignore, National Review, October 2003

Tape Shows General Wesley Clark linking Iraq and AQ

The Missing Link (What the Senate Ingelligence Report Said about Iraq/AQ Connections)

Credit to Mary Beth Seaha for the above info.

Credit to joesbucks for the following links:

Dozens of links here

Just a few of those links include:

The Clinton Justice Department's indictment against OBL in federal court which mentions the terrorist's connections to Iraq. November 4, 1998. The federal indictment

Iraq and AQ agree to cooperate. The federal indictment against OBL working in concert with Iraq and Iran is mentioned. November 1998. The New York Times

Saddam reaching out to OBL January 1, 1999. Newsweek

ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections January 14, 1999. ABC News

Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL. February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Saddam's Link to OBL February 6, 1999. The Guardian

Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden February 13, 1999. AP

Video coverage from drzz:

Saddam- Al Qaeda VIDEOS library (MUST SEE)

And kabar submitted these two little gems showing Bin Laden supported Iraq and its struggle against the US and the West:

1996 Fatwa: "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

1998 Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans