I consider Yahoo and AOL news to be liberally biased.

And the article you linked above has text in the article that contradicts the headline.

quote:
from the article:


"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.


Democrats have accused the administration of creating a "false impression" at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.


A recent poll by the Washington Post said 69 percent of Americans believed there was a Saddam link to the Sept. 11 attacks although no evidence of such a link has surfaced.


Cheney, interviewed on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks.


Cheney said on Sunday "It's not surprising" the public would believe Saddam was involved in the attacks, blamed on the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, who has repeatedly praised the attacks.


"We don't know," Cheney said. "We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."


Bush said Cheney was right about suspicions of an Iraq-al Qaeda link, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al Qaeda...


As with most of the slanted liberal coverage, it screams contradiction in its headline, and then makes a federal case out of miniscule differences between the two.

Bush says there's no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 at this point.
Cheney says there's no proof of a connection at this time, but that there was clear communication between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaida going back 10 years. Cheney says at this time there's no proof of Saddam's involvement in 9-11 terrorism, but some level of communication existed between Saddam and al Qaida.

So again, the differences between Bush and Cheney's views are miniscule.
Both agree that there is no absolute proof. Cheney expands on that, and mentions suspicions of some level of communication between Saddam and Al Qaida.

Your shocking breakthrough of a link is much ado about nothing.

And here's a retraction I just saw by the BBC, admitting that they didn't have adequate sources to report the allegation that Blair had "sexed up" his speech calling for invasion of Iraq, with false claims of Iraq's missile capabilities:

(the associated press: )
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/college/hurricanes/sns-ap-britain-weapons-adviser,0,2118272.story

(and a less clearly worded BBC version: )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3114738.stm

~

Regarding Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, I don't see mean-spiritedness in his pursuit of his federal investigation. Ken Starr has a very polite manner, and didn't make any wild allegations. He was absolutely committed to the fact that Clinton is guilty of a crime (perjury to a grand jury, that resulted in a 40 million dollar investigation that Clinton could have prevented with a little honesty at any point, for Democrats here who are immune to the facts, and allege Clinton's only crime was extramarital sex. Clinton's dishonesty also prevented discussion of the nation's business for close to two years).
And after Clinton's repeated denial that he did anything wrong, Clinton was finally forced to confess the truth when Lewinsky produced a semen-stained dress.
And even then, Democrats bypassed that Clinton was guilty, and accused Republicans of "mean-spirited" pursuit of Clinton.

REALITY CHECK: Clinton committed a crime.
And while Clinton was being investigated, I think Starr handled the investigation as politely as he could, with no cooperation from Clinton or the other Democrats.
Many papers across the country, liberal ones included, called for Clinton's resignation and/or impeachment in their editorial pages while Starr was doing his investigation.
I really felt bad for Starr, for the way he was unjustly trashed by the liberal media. While just doing his job as politely as he could, as special investigator of Clinton.

In contrast, there is no proof, ONLY RELENTLESS ALLEGATION, that Bush or Cheney have acted illegally.

And you constantly drag Bush over the coals for what are just a handful of American deaths. If one American dies, you want Bush to cut and run from Iraq.

REALITY CHECK: Wars involve inevitable American casualties, and even so, the losses are remarkably small ( less than 300, over the entire course of the war and occupation). I think your rhetoric is completely unrealistic about the risks of war.

I saw an interview tonight on PBS News with Bernard Kerik, who for the past four months has served as interim minister of interior in Iraq, and he said he doesn't understand the outcry for progress. He said he has been able to do more for Iraq's police force in Baghdad in four months than he was able to do as police commissioner of New York City in FIVE YEARS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
( under today's date, 9/17/2003, under "Securing Iraq" )

The Bush administration and our military are engaged in reconstruction on a massive scale, and you're slanderously badmouthing a lot of people who are doing an incredible job in Iraq, as quickly as they can.
Again, how long did it take to rebuild Japan, Gemany, and the rest of Europe. Or even a tiny place like Kosovo?
As Hal Lindsey said, where's the "exit strategy" from Germany and Japan?