The media has been gloating for days over news that a Pentagon report found no ties between Saddam and Al Qeada.

I wondered though, because there have been plenty of documents (out of the millions found) the bloggers have posted on in the past that refute that.  I also noted that the sudy cited 600K documents, not millions, so I wondered how conprehensive it really was.

I should not have worried.  Via Powerline:

The connection, take 54

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes is the man who wrote the book on The Connection"The connection."

The Bush administration long ago gave up trying to tell the truth about the issue, as it has on so many others where it has been beaten into submission by the elite media. And so when the Pentagon recently released its 59-page report confirming Hayes's reportage, the media have been left free to misrepresent it with impunity, as McClatchy's Warren Strobel does here, as the New York Times blog does here, and as the ABC blog does here.

Steve has now obtained and reviewed the report in its entirety. In a post previewing his article in the forthcoming issue of the Standard, Steve writes:

A new Pentagon report on Iraq and Terrorism has the news media buzzing. An item on the New York Times blog snarks, "Oh, By the Way, There Was No Al Qaeda Link." The ABC News story that previews the full report concludes, "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda."

How, then, to explain this sentence about Iraq and al Qaeda from the report's abstract: "At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust"? And how to explain the "considerable overlap" between their activities which led not only to the appearances of ties but to a "de facto link between the organizations?" (See the entire abstract below.)

I do not off hand know where he stands on the subject of earmarks, but surely something as obvious as conflict of interest should be an easy one.

One of Obama's Earmarks Went to Hospital That Employs Michelle Obama

Dan Riehl notes, via Amanda Carpenter, that in the list of earmarks he requested, $1 Million was requested for the construction of a new hospital pavilion at the University Of Chicago. The request was put in in 2006.

You know who works for the University of Chicago Hospital?

Michelle Obama. She's vice president of community affairs.

And if that was not bad enough:

As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office."

Looks like that raise was worth it.

Indeed.  And Amanda Carpenter parsed the list of his earmarks, and found it was 51 pages long.  Maybe that answers the question of how he feels about earmarks.

Yep.  Hope and change for sure.

Speaking of change, Texas Rainmaker has this up worthy of a chuckle.

How Are You Enjoying the Change?

A little over a year ago:

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 5-year high;
2. Regular gasoline averaged under $2.30 a gallon;
3. The unemployment rate was down to 4.4%.
4. Americans were enjoying historically-high home equity.

Since voting in a Democrat Congress in 2006 we have seen: 

1. Consumer confidence plummet;
2. The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.25 a gallon;
3. Unemployment rise to 4.8% (a 9% increase);
4. American home equity hit the lowest point in six decades;

I think the honeymoon is over.  But get used to it, the next four years will continue to be a killing field for the Democrats, and our taxes and prosperity are the targets.

After stating something everyone knew, Geraldine Ferraro was skewered as a racist, and has quit from Hillary's campaign.

Breaking: Ferraro steps down

Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from her role as a member of Hillary Clinton's finance committee.

In a letter to Clinton obtained by CNN's Suzanne Malveaux — who spoke with the former vice presidential candidate shortly after she sent it to Clinton — Ferraro said she is stepping down so, "I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign."

In a phone conversation with Malveaux, Ferraro said she was not asked to step down by Senator Clinton or her campaign

Ferraro said thousands of people are part of the finance committee, saying it is not a staff position, but a voluntary one for those who raise money for the campaign. She also said she has raised $125,000 for Senator Clinton.

When asked if she had any regrets about what she said, Ferraro replied, "absolutely not."

"I am who I am and I will continue to speak up," she said. She added that she thought it was a shame that the Obama campaign was trying to block her First Amendment rights, and that she felt that was no way to conduct a campaign.

Her role on Hillary's campaign was a minor one, but obviously Hillary is happy to have a separation, as she is trying to blunt any suggestions she is racist or abides racism.

When asked how she felt about Hillary Clinton distancing herself from her remarks, Ferraro replied, "I am perfectly fine," and that there were no hard feelings. She said she understands what Clinton is going through, and understands that being part of a presidential campaign is "very hard."

Full letter:

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.