Speaking of dishonesty

CC reported that the so-called "Liberal" media is dispensing lies about the connections between Iraq and 9/11 citing a NYT's article that states "...there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11."

CC then criticizes NYT strenuously, "Never any evidence of even a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.[?] Uh, that makes this part of Statement 15 from the 9/11 Commission report weird..."

First, this is from an Op/Ed piece, which are intended to be arguments for a position, not a headline as CC's link states. But who's being disingenuous, my learned brethren? I guess it depends on your definition of "link."

It seems the far right, and yes, Superstar is on the "far far" right citing Ann Coulter as if she were Mahatma Ghandi or Benjamin Franklin reincarnated, is now engaging in some good ole' fashioned Karl Rove spinning after the 9-11 commission confirmed that there was nary a link between Saddam and 9/11. The meeting with Atta in Prague never occurred b/c he was in the US.

Of course there's some evidence of some contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend." But contact was also detected among, in your own words: Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Oman, Tunsinia, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, Somalia and Eritrea.

Did we send our troops to occupy any of these nations? Did we attack Iran or Saudi Arabia, both of which played much stronger roles in the 9-11 attacks than beleagured Iraq. Again, how many of the 19 "suiciders" were from Saudi Arabia?

Back to the facts, from the Times, headlined "Saddam link to 9/11 not likely":

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein had any connection to the September 11 attacks by the al Qaeda terrorist network, a federal commission said yesterday.

This is from the WASH TIMES! far from the so-called liberal newspaper that the CC's and the Dick Cheney's of the world love to self-servingly bash and attempt to discredit. Where is this article among the bevy cited in your link?

Argue, cajole, spin, deflect, twist all you want Cheney, the simple fact is that you sold us a war on "overwhelming" evidence that Iraq had WMD coming out of their ears, played a role in 9-11-01, that Iraqi oil would pour out of the country easily paying for a war, and that the Iraqis would accept our soldiers as liberators adorning them with flowers, confetti, and their first born. Not one of these has come to fruition, yet the lies go on.

It's axiomatic to say that the first casualty of any war is the truth and Iraq Part deux is no exception. With this in mind and Rummy's declaration that we're in for a long, hard slug, we should be prepared for not only more war but far more lies.