Quote:
Originally posted by Grojlach:
The heated words -- which were edited out of the program seen by viewers -- involved O'Reilly's criticism of the New York Times and its coverage of the controversy over whether there were links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
In kicking off what he called "no-spin coverage" of the issue, O'Reilly began the show by saying that "the Times and other newspapers have been under heavy fire for their misleading headlines, basically saying there was no link" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
As Cole listened from Washington, the program played a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."
O'Reilly complained that this was the wrong sound bite. In retaping the commentary, he paraphrased one of Kean's points but not the other: "Governor Thomas Kean says definitely there was a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. And he's the 9/11 investigative chief, but that's not enough for the Times."
"I was sort of astonished he would do it so brazenly in front of guests," says Cole, an activist attorney who has challenged the USA Patriot Act in court.
O'Reilly calls "totally absurd" the suggestion that he cut the sound bite "because it didn't fit my thesis." A producer had simply selected a clip that wasn't right for the segment, he says.
But Cole says: "Here he is castigating the New York Times for misleading its readers, and he was misleading his viewers. I wish the show had been live because I'd love for his viewers to see what he was up to."
|
I'll quote the article here:
As Cole listened from Washington, the program played a clip of commission chairman Thomas Kean saying: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however, is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."
Now I don't know why O'reilly was complaining about this sound bite, IT clearly says there was a link, and I quote again: "There is no evidence that we can find whatsoever that Iraq or Saddam Hussein participated in any way in attacks on the United States -- in other words, on 9/11. What we do say, however,
is there were contacts between Iraq and Saddam Hussein, excuse me, al-Qaeda."
The problem lies in what the definition of links and contact is. Other evidence has come out showing clearly that Sodamn Insane and the Iraqi Intel were actively talking to Al-Qaeda about working together on opperations. Does that mean they were working together on 9/11 NO!!!! it does mean they had contacts/links/cooperation together on some issues and opperations. And Since President Bush said we are going after terrorists and the countries that harbor, and lend aid(paraphrased by me) Iraq falls inside of this. President Bush didnot say we were ONLY going after Al-qaeda and nobody else. He said terrorists, al-qaeda and "al-qaeda like" groups.
Now the NY times put in BOLD 72pt min. type above the fold "NO LINKS", not that there were no links on 9/11, but NO LINKS. A week or so later when the new stuff came out SHOWING there were LINKS/CONTACT/COOPERATION bewteen the two, the NY Times in a smaller maybe 48pt type below the fold that there were contacts.
You guys can make the call.