Can you believe that the extremist left is upset with the number of times the President mentioned September 11, 2001 in his most recent speach?

I can.









Okay, . . . Here’s what's at work here. The extremists know that the American people still harbor harsh feelings toward the Islamic terrorists who killed 3000 of their countrymen on 9/11. The left also knows that the American people will not have any kind feelings toward anyone with any connection, no matter how tenuous, with the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Since the left is placing its hopes on any possible electoral gains in 2006 to discrediting Bush's actions in Iraq, they know that they must stand steadfast in their battle to use whatever means necessary, even lies, to make sure that nobody -- and certainly not the president -- is allowed to connect Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda.

The truth is that there is no shortage of evidence that there were contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. We'll detail some of those associations on the air today . . . but if you can't listen to the program here's one source you might want to take a look at. It's an excellent article appearing on the online edition of National Review Andrew McCarthy makes the case that "It's All About 9/11" Yes, there's a link there .. But I would not recommend this article to any of you leftists out there who can't handle the truth about this matter. There's also an excellent editorial on the National Review website, "The Day that binds" which puts forth the premise that you simply cannot make the case for the removal of Saddam without reference to 9/11. Of course, the extreme left tries to make the case that the National Review is some kind of right wing voice. Okay, . . . then what about Newsweek??

The troubling question here is in light of all of the documented evidence that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda .. and the evidence that some of Saddam's henchmen might have participated in the early planning of the 9/11 attacks, why do so-called "journalists" will actually write or state things like "everybody knows that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" or "It's been proven that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11??

These people have access to the same information that I do or that you do . . . Information that shows those connections existed. They can't plead stupidity. The information is out there. It's in the report from David Kay. It's in the 9/11 Commission report . . . it's there, yet its existence is continuously denied by so many in the mainstream media. Why??

Well . . . let's try to answer the "why." As I said, it can't be ignorance. So what's at work here? How about bias? Could it be that these "journalists" are consciously practicing the "big lie" technique? Even though they know better, do they constantly make absolute statements such as "Everybody knows that there's no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda" in an attempt to convince the American people of something that they know full well isn't true? And why would they do that? To carry forth an anti-Bush administration agenda? I can’t figure it out, but it’s really silly to expect thinking Americans to buy in.

God Bless,
Dan'L