BCT Editorial – 9/15/06

This page was last updated on September 16, 2006.

Ignorance isn’t bliss; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 15, 2006. While in the print edition of the paper, this editorial was not posted on the Times website.

I’m lazy today so I chose not to transcribe the entire editorial. Instead I only quote a few excerpts. In summary, though, the editorial conflates believing terrorists were in Iraq for many years with believing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida teamed up on 9/11.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Two-thirds of the American people still get it wrong on Saddam and al-Qaida

[RWC] The consternation displayed by the editorial comes from a Rasmussen Reports survey that found “43% of the 1,000 adults it surveyed on Sunday and Monday continue to believe that there were links between Saddam Hussein’s government and al-Qaida prior to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on America.” Further, “Another 25% were not sure.”

You’ll note the report doesn’t say 43% of Americans believe Saddam Hussein and collaborated on the 9/11 attacks, yet that’s how the Times presents it.

As noted in my critique of “The big lie,” it’s indisputable Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and had various terrorist organizations – including al-Qaida – training and/or taking shelter in Iraq. Are we to believe in a police state as tightly run as Iraq, these terrorist groups operated under Saddam Hussein’s nose without his approval even if he didn’t directly participate in their activities?

“On top of that, a couple of weeks ago the big man himself fessed up that there were not ties. When a reporter asked Bush what Iraq had to do with 9/11, the president’s response was, ‘Nothing.’”

[RWC] Here we have two problems. First, once again the editorial conflates “ties” with involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Before I proceed, let’s look at the Q&A as recorded by The Washington Post.

“QUESTION: What did Iraqi [sic] have to do with … the attacks upon the World Trade Center?

“BUSH: Nothing. Except for it’s part of -- and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.

“Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case.”

As you can see, President Bush didn’t say there were no ties. He said Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11. That’s a big difference the editorial wants us to miss and is why the editorial author felt he had to misrepresent what the president said.

Second, the Bush administration never claimed an Iraq involvement in 9/11. This is a myth pushed by the Times and its fellow travelers. If the Bush administration did make this claim, you can bet we’d see those quotes featured prominently in editorials like this.

To wrap up, the Times calls us ignorant because we understand the difference between links/ties and direct cooperation. For example, people understand advertisers and subscribers have links/ties with the Times, but the advertisers and subscribers have nothing to do with the production or delivery of the paper.