Attila the Pun
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
NYT 'largely' biased
Headline: 9/11 report finds no al-Qaeda, Iraqi links
Text: "The final report of the commission investigating the attacks on September 11 will stand by the conclusions of the panel's staff and largely dismiss White House theories about a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda"
Is 'largely' the same as 'no' links?
The panel's staff created controversy last month with an interim report that largely discounted theories about close ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, another justification cited by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq.
Apparently so. And what the hell does 'largely discounted' mean? That is even softer than 'largely dismissed' or 'discounted'. Used together, especially by the NYT, it shows that the partisan commission did not deliver the knockout blow that various terrorist huggers were hoping for.
The report said there was "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States" and that repeated contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship".
So they are willing to admit that there were repeated meetings between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but think that nothing came of it? What were they expecting to find? - A Joint Venture Agreement, or Heads of Agreement letter?
What do they think Iraq (a nation opposed to the US) and al-Qaeda (a terrorist organisation) were talking about? al-Qaeda has no purpose other than to undertake terrorist activities, therefore any meeting with them must be to discuss such activities. Just because they and Iraq may have just swapped notes and hilarious jihad anecdotes, rather than actually equipping them with sarin gas, does not mean there was 'no link'.
Let me put it another way - what do they think was being discussed?
Comments: Post a Comment