"Case Closed" screamed the neocon propaganda rag Weekly Standard about the alleged Saddam - Osama pact on the cover of its November 24, 2003 issue. The Standard, financed (at a loss) by Likudnik media baron Rupert Murdoch of the infamous Fox News, claimed and continues to maintain that the US government has kept this momentuous knowledge SECRET. That's right, the US government concocted mobile labs and WMD's and what not to hoodwink the UN Security Council but kept the REAL dope on Saddam and Osama SECRET. The Standard's story, based on "stovepiped" secret memos leaked by the disgraced Pentagon miscreant Douglas Feith, was demolished before it reached the newsstands by Newsweek:
A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an "operational relationship" between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago -- and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials. ... In fact, the tangled tale of the memo suggests that the case of whether there has been Iraqi-Al Qaeda complicity is far from closed.
Ever since and regarless of the innumerable rebuttals in the media, from the CIA, and from the Pentagon itself, the Standard has entrusted its hack Stephen Hayes with spinning tall tales about Osama and Saddam inspired by the "stovepiped" junk intelligence obtained illegally from Doug Feith. The analysis linked here is a rebuttal by FAIR, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting fairness and accuracy in reporting. FAIR makes mincemeat out of the Standard's exposé, pointing out elementary errors like this one:
Some items in the Weekly Standard piece seem so painfully flimsy it's hard to believe they found their way into an official memo or a national magazine article: "One report states that 'in late 1999' al-Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that 'was operational as of 1999.'" Northern Iraq, as the world knows, lay outside the control of Saddam Hussein's government throughout the 1990s, ruled instead by Kurdish militias under the protection of U.S. and allied air forces.
The FAIR article does answer one intriguing question: Since none of the mainstream media not (yet) owned by Rupert Murdoch accord any credence to the Weekly Standard's fake Saddam-Osama reports, why does the Murdoch propaganda rag keep on beating the same dead horse year after year? Here's the answer:
"This is made to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated," Greg Thielmann, former State Department director of proliferation intelligence, said of the Feith memo.
That also answers another burning question: Who are these people constantly spamming Newsvine with this long-discredited aspect of the Murdoch yellow media's anti-Saddam propaganda jihad? Apparently they are the same people, namely the "not terribly educated."
So if anyone's wondering why I seeded an article from 2004, it's because the dead horse that the neocon dead-enders of Newsvine are beating is even older than that. No wonder it smells so bad.