Bush vs. Critics

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush takes on critics of Iraq war

President says war is central to fight against terrorism

 

TOBYHANNA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- President Bush Friday accused critics of the Iraq war of distorting the events that led to the U.S. invasion, saying Democrats viewed the same intelligence and came to similar conclusions.

 

"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," the president said during a Veterans Day speech in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.

 

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war," Bush said. "They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein."

 

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush said.

 

The president also cited a Senate Intelligence Committee report issued in July 2004 that said the committee "was not presented with any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so."

 

Senate Democrats are pressuring the committee to complete a "Phase 2" of the report that would focus on how the prewar intelligence was used by the administration. (Full Story)

 

A bipartisan panel headed by federal Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman and former Republican Sen. Charles Robb, also came to similar conclusions. However, that committee only examined the intelligence community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs, not how the intelligence was used.

Democrats respond

 

Democrats responded immediately -- and angrily -- to Bush's comments.

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded to Bush's speech in a statement, saying that the commander-in-chief missed an opportunity to lay out "a clear strategy for success in the war in Iraq."

 

"Attacking those patriotic Americans who have raised serious questions about the case the Bush administration made to take our country to war does not provide us a plan for success that will bring our troops home," Reid said.

 

"The American people are demanding a comprehensive plan and the benchmarks by which to measure our success for the war in Iraq," Reid said. "The president's continued refusal to provide that plan does nothing to support our troops or their families."

 

In a statement, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, noting that a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution that authorized the war, faulted the president for politicizing Veterans Day.

 

"On Veterans Day we should come together to honor those who have served in our Armed Forces. Instead, President Bush is using Veterans Day to try to bolster his political standing on the war in Iraq rather than honor our nation's men and women in uniform.

 

"The president does a disservice to the troops and the American people when he tries to silence those asking questions about putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way," Pelosi said.

Continuing the war

 

Bush reiterated his argument that the United States must continue to fight to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state from which terrorists would launch attacks on other nations to implement their radical ideology.

 

Bush referred to a letter he said was written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 leader. The letter, according to Bush, said the group's goal is to force the United States to leave Iraq, just as it had departed from Vietnam, Beirut and other engagements, after suffering heavy casualties. (Read a report on al-Zawahiri's letter)

 

The authenticity of the letter has been questioned by some terrorism experts. (Full story)

 

"They believe that America can be made to run again, only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences," Bush said.

 

"The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity," the president said. "We must recognize the Iraq war as our central front against the terrorist."

 

If the terrorists drive America out of Iraq, Bush said, they could develop weapons of mass destruction, intimidate Middle East regimes friendly to the West, attack the United States and "blackmail our government into isolation."

 

"Some might be tempted to dismiss these goals as fanatical or extreme," Bush said. "They are fanatical and extreme but they should not be dismissed."

 

Comparing the terrorists to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, Bush said "evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

Staying in Iraq

 

Bush also dismissed critics who say the U.S. invasion of Iraq has strengthened the terrorists.

 

"No act of ours invited the rage of killers and no concession, bribe or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder," Bush said. "Against such an enemy, there is only one effective response: We will never back down, we will never give in, we will never accept anything less than complete victory."

 

The president said the U.S. forces -- along with Iraqi partners -- are implementing a strategy he described as "clear, hold and build."

 

"We're working to clear areas from terrorist control, to hold those areas securely, and to build lasting democratic Iraqi institutions through an increasingly inclusive political process."

 

About 2,500 people had been expected to attend the event, including veterans and their families and members of the state's congressional delegation.

 

The speech was meant to "directly take on some of these false attacks that have been recently brought up by some Democratic leaders," a White House official said Thursday.

 

National security adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters Thursday that the thrust of Bush's speech "is to continue to talk to the American people about the war on terror, the nature of the enemy, what is at stake (and) the importance that we see it through to success."

'Campaign-style' strategy

 

Earlier this week, senior White House officials told CNN they were working on a "campaign-style" strategy to respond to stepped-up Democratic criticism that Bush officials manipulated intelligence in making the case for war, an accusation the administration repeatedly has denied.

 

The intelligence debate intensified following the October 28 indictment of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, who resigned the day he was indicted.

 

Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements to federal agents investigating the leak to reporters of the identity of CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame. Her husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, had publicly challenged a key element of the administration's case for war.

 

In his briefing Thursday, Hadley detoured from the president's upcoming four-nation Asia tour to defend the administration's rationale for invading Iraq and to rebut charges that intelligence had been manipulated.

 

Hadley told reporters the intelligence used to support the war had been developed over a "long period of time."

2003 CIA report raised doubt

 

"We all looked at the same intelligence, and most people -- on the intelligence -- reached the same conclusion," Hadley said, referring to the present and previous administrations and to Congress.

 

Adding to the intelligence dispute is a January 2003 CIA report that raised doubts about claims that al Qaeda sent operatives to Iraq to acquire chemical and biological weapons. (Full story)

 

In January and February 2003, President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made dramatic assertions that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and argued for military action to prevent Baghdad from providing its suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. (Watch: CIA experts question intelligence source -- 2:17)

 

Powell repeated the claim before the United Nations in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

 

No such stockpiles turned up after the U.S.-led invasion, and the independent commission investigating al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington found no evidence of a collaborative relationship between the two entities.

 

CNN obtained a CIA document Thursday that outlined the history of the claim, which originated in 2002 with a captured al Qaeda operative who recanted two years later.

 

The CIA report appears to support a recently declassified document that revealed the Defense Intelligence Agency thought in February 2002 that the source, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, was lying to interrogators.

 

Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, this week released the DIA report in alleging the administration cited faulty intelligence to argue for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/11/bush.intel/index.html

 

While I do not believe the administration actually manufactured evidence, I do believe they ignored conflicting evidence, and came to the wrong conclusion about the threat that Iraq posed. Only the evidence that supported the President's conclusion was presented to the Congress and the American people.

 

Bush's argument is pure red herring. He has no substance to defend himself with, so he resorts to changing the subject to what "signal" the accusations send people.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Comparing the terrorists to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, Bush said "evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

 

Comparing the Republicans to Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot, some dumbass college kid said "evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply."

 

Bush has fallen prey to making Hitler comparisons too?!? Where's my Hitler picture? "Leave me out of this."

[Failed Bridge 0]

The next time Bush does something positive for this country will be the first time.

[2GOLD 0]

The next time Bush does something positive for this country will be the first time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That can be said for almost every politician of the last 20 years.

[Failed Bridge 0]

I expect more from the President than I do of your run-of-the-mill politician though.

[2GOLD 0]

I expect more from the President than I do of your run-of-the-mill politician though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't. They are nothing more than the same worthless liar in a higher position. Nothing changed cept for their nametag.

 

You cannot expect people who do nothing for you at the lower levels to do something for you at the higher levels. Politicians are what they are; worthless.

[The Czech Republic 0]

He stinks!

[Failed Bridge 0]

Critics hate Bush and he gets to keep his job. Critics love Arrested Development and its on the brink of being canceled. I hate this world.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well what do you care, if you actively refused to watch it Monday nights, anyway.

[Failed Bridge 0]

I buy the DVD sets. I can't watch any series on TV now that they sell them on DVD. I can't stand all the stupid comercials.

[Guest Vitamin X]

They need to make ad blockers for TVs.

[NoCalMike 0]

Well Bush's new defense is that the Democrats are the ones revising history, claiming they all agreed with the war in the first place, even though the intelligence reports they received at briefings, were edited with valuable information purposely left out to skew their opinions..

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

The Times & the Post ripped Bush's speech to threads.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111101832.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://w...2ByNQ2AQ25kQ2Bf.

[Gary Floyd 0]

Well, in other news his approval ratings are at an all time low

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...ll_x.htm?csp=24

[Kismet 0]

Liberal Media Bias. Unmitigated bullshit. Sorry, just trying to fill a void.

[Guest Vitamin X]

That shouldn't come from a Dirty Hippy.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Times & the Post ripped Bush's speech to threads.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111101832.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://w...2ByNQ2AQ25kQ2Bf.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In case you don't feel like subscribing to the New York Times...

 

 

Decoding Mr. Bush's Denials

 

Published: November 15, 2005

 

To avoid having to account for his administration's misleading statements before the war with Iraq, President Bush has tried denial, saying he did not skew the intelligence. He's tried to share the blame, claiming that Congress had the same intelligence he had, as well as President Bill Clinton. He's tried to pass the buck and blame the C.I.A. Lately, he's gone on the attack, accusing Democrats in Congress of aiding the terrorists.

 

Yesterday in Alaska, Mr. Bush trotted out the same tedious deflection on Iraq that he usually attempts when his back is against the wall: he claims that questioning his actions three years ago is a betrayal of the troops in battle today.

 

It all amounts to one energetic effort at avoidance. But like the W.M.D. reports that started the whole thing, the only problem is that none of it has been true.

 

•

 

Mr. Bush says everyone had the same intelligence he had - Mr. Clinton and his advisers, foreign governments, and members of Congress - and that all of them reached the same conclusions. The only part that is true is that Mr. Bush was working off the same intelligence Mr. Clinton had. But that is scary, not reassuring. The reports about Saddam Hussein's weapons were old, some more than 10 years old. Nothing was fresher than about five years, except reports that later proved to be fanciful.

 

Foreign intelligence services did not have full access to American intelligence. But some had dissenting opinions that were ignored or not shown to top American officials. Congress had nothing close to the president's access to intelligence. The National Intelligence Estimate presented to Congress a few days before the vote on war was sanitized to remove dissent and make conjecture seem like fact.

 

It's hard to imagine what Mr. Bush means when he says everyone reached the same conclusion. There was indeed a widespread belief that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate. France, Russia and Germany said war was not justified. Even Britain admitted later that there had been no new evidence about Iraq, just new politics.

 

The administration had little company in saying that Iraq was actively trying to build a nuclear weapon. The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

 

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

 

Mr. Bush has said in recent days that the first phase of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation on Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence. That is true only in the very narrow way the Republicans on the committee insisted on defining pressure: as direct pressure from senior officials to change intelligence. Instead, the Bush administration made what it wanted to hear crystal clear and kept sending reports back to be redone until it got those answers.

 

Richard Kerr, a former deputy director of central intelligence, said in 2003 that there was "significant pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence that supported a connection" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The C.I.A. ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the administration's "hammering" on Iraq intelligence was harder than he had seen in his 32 years at the agency.

 

Mr. Bush and other administration officials say they faithfully reported what they had read. But Vice President Dick Cheney presented the Prague meeting as a fact when even the most supportive analysts considered it highly dubious. The administration has still not acknowledged that tales of Iraq coaching Al Qaeda on chemical warfare were considered false, even at the time they were circulated.

 

Mr. Cheney was not alone. Remember Condoleezza Rice's infamous "mushroom cloud" comment? And Secretary of State Colin Powell in January 2003, when the rich and powerful met in Davos, Switzerland, and he said, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for nuclear weapons?" Mr. Powell ought to have known the report on "special equipment"' - the aluminum tubes - was false. And the uranium story was four years old.

 

•

 

The president and his top advisers may very well have sincerely believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But they did not allow the American people, or even Congress, to have the information necessary to make reasoned judgments of their own. It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why.

 

Mr. Bush said last Friday that he welcomed debate, even in a time of war, but that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." We agree, but it is Mr. Bush and his team who are rewriting history.

 

The New York Times could print that the sky is blue and conservatives wouldn't believe it.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Washington Post's version

(because I know some people just don't feel like clicking the link)

 

Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument

 

By Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, November 12, 2005; A01

 

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

 

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

 

The administration's overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.

 

But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.

 

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

 

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

 

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

 

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

 

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

 

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.

 

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

 

Even within the Bush administration, not everybody consistently viewed Iraq as what Hadley called "an enormous threat." In a news conference in February 2001 in Egypt, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said of the economic sanctions against Hussein's Iraq: "Frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction."

 

Bush, in his speech Friday, said that "it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." But in trying to set the record straight, he asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

 

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.

 

The resolution voiced support for diplomatic efforts to enforce "all relevant Security Council resolutions," and for using the armed forces to enforce the resolutions and defend "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

 

Hadley, in his remarks, went further. "Congress, in 1998, authorized, in fact, the use of force based on that intelligence," he said. "And, as you know, the Clinton administration took some action."

 

But the 1998 legislation gave the president authority "to support efforts to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein" by providing assistance to Iraqi opposition groups, including arms, humanitarian aid and broadcasting facilities.

 

President Bill Clinton ordered four days of bombing of Iraqi weapons facilities in 1998, under the 1991 resolution authorizing military force in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Describing that event in an interview with CBS News yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: "We went to war in 1998 because of concerns about his weapons of mass destruction."

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

In case you don't feel like subscribing to the New York Times...

 

It's a free subscription! Lazy bastards...

 

The Washington Post's version

(because I know some people just don't feel like clicking the link)

 

*walks off grumbling*

 

LousykidswhyIoughta...

[Justice 0]

The Washington Post >>>>> The New York Times

[Art Sandusky 0]

The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But, as The Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary.

 

Real story here, guys.

[SuperJerk 0]

My question: Who were the six and how did they vote?

 

The thing about the resolution, though, is that it apparently never said anything about installing a new government, thus giving Democrats the wiggle-room to distance themselves from Bush if things went wrong, but was supportive enough of what Bush was proposing to that they could claim they supported action if things went well.

[Art Sandusky 0]

That resolution that got voted down to withdraw immediately was kinda smart, but proved nothing. It was the political equivalent of forcing someone who doesn't support the death penalty to say it'd be okay to execute a mass murderer.

[Special K 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051122/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq

 

Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera. Clearly a civilian target. Fuck it, if this is true Bush IS evil, and he IS a terrorist. Al-Jazeera may be the ultimate anti-America propoganda machine, but it's civilians, and what the fuck do you think is going to happen if we bomb it?

[Slayer 0]

So why does Congress publish million-page documents knowing full well no one (including their own ilk) reads them?

[2GOLD 0]

So why does Congress publish million-page documents knowing full well no one (including their own ilk) reads them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because they know no one will read them. The last thing they want is for people to know what they do with their time and money.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Things are much nicer with businessmen running the country the last twenty-five years, no?

[SuperJerk 0]

This stories seems to have completely slipped under my radar...

 

U.S.: Al-Jazeera bomb story 'outlandish'

British paper: Blair talked Bush out of airstrike on network

 

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The White House characterized as "outlandish" Tuesday a British newspaper report that President Bush once discussed bombing the headquarters of Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera with Prime Minister Tony Blair.

 

Al-Jazeera, based in Qatar, called on the British government to confirm or deny the report, which appeared Tuesday in the Daily Mirror, a London tabloid.

 

The network has been a frequent target of U.S. criticism, and its facilities have been hit by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Jazeera said the Daily Mirror report would be "both shocking and worrisome" if true. (Watch whether Bush considered targeting the television network --1:42)

 

"It would cast serious doubts in regard to the U.S. administration's version of previous incidents involving Al-Jazeera's journalists and offices," the network said in a statement.

 

"It would also constitute a new chapter in the relationship between two of the most powerful governments in the world and media organizations in general," the statement said.

 

The Daily Mirror reported that Blair talked Bush out of launching an airstrike against Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar -- a U.S. ally -- during an April 16, 2004, meeting at the White House.

 

Citing a top-secret memo from Blair's office, the tabloid said Bush was angered by the network's coverage of the uprising in the western Iraqi city of Falluja.

 

U.S. Marines had been deployed to the city about 35 miles west of Baghdad on the Euphrates River to restore order after four American security guards had been killed and their bodies mutilated by insurgents.

 

"We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response," a White House official told CNN. A Pentagon official called the Daily Mirror report "absolutely absurd."

 

Al-Jazeera said it wanted to be "absolutely sure" the memo cited in the report is genuine and urged 10 Downing Street to confirm the information if true.

 

If the memo is accurate, the network's statement said, "it would be incumbent on them to explain their positions on statements regarding the deliberate targeting of journalists and news organizations."

 

Downing Street spokesman Ian Gleeson said Blair's office would have no comment since the memo the Daily Mirror cited is the subject of court action.

 

The newspaper reported that two people have been charged with violating British secrecy laws in connection with its release.

 

Top Bush administration officials, particularly Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have been sharply critical of Al-Jazeera in the past.

 

When U.S. troops went back into Falluja in November 2004, Rumsfeld called the network's account of civilian casualties during the American push to retake the city "outrageous nonsense" and "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable."

 

An Al-Jazeera reporter was killed and three other employees were wounded by an American airstrike during the U.S. push into Baghdad in 2003.

 

American bombs struck the network's Kabul office during the U.S. assault on Afghanistan in 2001.

 

During the 1999 air campaign over Kosovo, U.S. warplanes targeted Yugoslavia's state television network. NATO officials argued it was a legitimate target as the propaganda arm of the Yugoslav government.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/22...zeera/?eref=aol

[cbacon 0]

Damage control.

 

In the documentary Control Room, they explain how Al Jazeera was clearly targeted. Washington's reason was that they were being fired upon by the station.

Edited December 3, 2005 by C-Bacon

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Damage control.

 

In the documentary Control Room, they explain how Al Jazeera was clearly targeted. Washington's reason was that they were being fired upon by the station.

 

But Al-Jazeera wasn't *actually* attacked. I think you're mistaken or confused.

 

There were other incidents of journalists being attacked in Iraq, maybe you were thinking of these.

 

Also, someone else already posted about this.

Edited December 3, 2005 by bigolsmitty