[Vision2020] Media Watch

[WMSteed@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/6/03 9:02:28 AM, mushroom@moscow.com writes:

<< Only in paragraph 9, tucked away inside on page 3, do we
find that the man in question is in a northern region
"outside Saddam's control." (The group in control of the
region, as revealed on television news last night, is
actively engaged in trying to "destroy Saddam.") >>

In complaining about this morning's Lewiston Morning Tribune article on 
terrorists connections to Saddam and feeling that the above "lack" of 
connection should not have been so far down in the story, you neglected to 
quote paragraph 10 which said, "In May 2002, Zarqawi received medical 
treatment in Baghdad after he fled Afghanistan" and that while Zarqawi was in 
the Iraqi capital, nearly two dozen other extremists converged there to 
establish a base of operations."  Surely you will agree that Baghdad is under 
Saddam's control.

Additionally, paragraph 9 that you quote to show Saddam had no control over 
the terrorist camp area in northern Iraq concludes, "Powell said the Iraqi 
president has an agent in the top leadership of Ansar al-Islam [who allowed 
them in] and implied the group would not have offered al-Qaida refuge without 
Saddam's consent."

<<It is news that the "U.S. says Saddam is harboring a
notorious al-Qaida terrorist," and maybe it's big enough
news to put on the front page. But paragraph two of the
story then should point out that what the U.S. says is
patently untrue.>>

Not sure reading the whole story, in any order, would bring open minded 
persons to the conclusion that "what the U.S. says is patently untrue."  In 
fact paragraph 7 of the story states, "An expert on counterterrorismn at the 
International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Jonathan Stevenson, 
called the link to Zarqawi "significant," while noting Powell didn't actually 
tie Iraq to any "previous" al-Qaida operation. 

Guess we just have to wait until another terrorist attack to "make the 
connection."

Walter Steed