XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.barbra.streisand, alt.fan.j-garofalo   
   XPost: alt.fan.julia-roberts   
   From: hpgoldfinger@N0SPAM.C0M   
      
   LIBERAL BIAS FROM THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ... AGAIN.   
      
      
   We're starting to get some leaks about the contents of the 911   
   Commission report. Yesterday the Associated Press said that the report   
   "bluntly contradicts" the Bush Administration's claims that Saddam   
   Hussein was linked to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Now it is   
   true that the 911 Commission report actually says that there was no   
   evidence of a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. So ...   
   what is my problem here? The problem is that the Bush administration   
   never ... and I mean never made a claim that such a connection existed   
   in the first place. In fact, George Bush has repeatedly said that   
   there is no evidence that such a connection exists.  This creates a   
   bit of a question, then, about the AP story. How can the 911   
   Commission report "bluntly contradict" that claim that has never been   
   made? There can be no "blunt contradiction" of a claim that has never   
   been made. So, what did George Bush say?  He said that there is no   
   question that Saddam had Al Qaeda connections. The 911 Commission   
   report, by the way, agrees.   
      
   CNN is no better than AP. This morning on CNN Bill Hemmer started the   
   news story this way:  "One of the original justifications for war in   
   Iraq has been discredited by the 911 Commission." He then went on to   
   relate the commission's findings of no Hussein connection with the   
   9/11 attacks. This is the same tact used by AP. Basing a story on a   
   wholly false premise .. and doing so intentionally.   
      
   This is getting ridiculous. The writers and the editors know that Bush   
   never claimed that Hussein had any connection with the actual   
   terrorist attack. Someone at AP made a conscious decision to include   
   that bogus   
   "bluntly contradicts" line into the story because they knew that the   
   end result would be unfavorable to President Bush. Simply put, the   
   purpose of that line was to portray Bush as either a liar or ignorant.   
   The person or persons responsible for the "bluntly contradicts" line   
   knows that people --  voters -- will read the story and believe that   
   Bush asserted that such a claim exists, and was wrong. This, my   
   friends, is a prime example of pure unadulterated media bias at work.   
      
   boortz.com   
      
   --   
   Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They   
   are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,   
   selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.   
      
   Liberals HATE America!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)