Many of you may not be aware of several major news stories that have taken place this month if you get your news from the MSM. As a service to you, here are some things you may have missed.

Before the Iraq War, Saddam’s Foreign Minister, Naji Sabri, told the CIA that Saddam had stockpiled weapons and had “poison gas.”

This story is actually reported by MSNBC, but their main focus is that Sabri told the CIA that Saddam didn’t have a “significant, active” biological warfare program and was farther out from developing a nuclear weapon than the CIA thought. They question why the administration did not listen to Sabri. Could it be because it was an official for Saddam, saying the same thing that Saddam was saying, probably on threat of his life?

But if we are going to accept his testimony at face value, what about this:

On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as “500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents” and had “renewed” production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had “poison gas” left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong.

So we are supposed to believe him without question in one instance and know he is lying in another? That makes sense.

Because all of the major newspapers and newsmagazines have essentially refused to cover it, The Weekly Standard is the only one I know to have reported in depth on the release of a cache of documents from Iraq, many of which connect Saddam to Al-Qaeda. Their story leads off:

SADDAM HUSSEIN’S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons.

Besides The Weekly Standard, the only ones mentioning these documents in a significant way are the conservative bloggers such as Powerline and Michelle Malkin.

When and if they do mention the documents, they include disclaimers. When does the MSM ever use disclaimers when they are dealing with unnamed sources?

Speaking of Michelle, her blog and Ace cover the demise of the New York Times and the death of any credibility they may have left.

It seems the New York Times will believe anything that soothes their liberal ears. They did a front page story complete with picture on an Iraqi man claiming to be the Abu Ghraib prisoner in the iconic photo showing a man on a box, with a black bag over his head with electric wires connected to him.

Salon, out-investigated the New York Times, forcing NYT to issue a “clarification” about the story. Then when they acutally, you know, researched the claim, the Times had to issue a full blown correction. But in their “correction,” they blamed PBS and Vanity Fair for reporting it first, the man’s lawyers for supporting it and the Pentagon for not denying it. Then the Times shares this:

Despite the previous reports, The Times should have been more persistent in seeking comment from the military. A more thorough examination of previous articles in The Times and other newspapers would have shown that in 2004 military investigators named another man as the one on the box, raising suspicions about Mr. Qaissi’s claim.

So they should have pressed the Pentagon harder, even though the military had already identified the man in 2004 and the Times reported on it? Can your reporters not do a search on your own paper before publishing a huge front page story?

But I can’t fault the Times too much, after all the man did have a business card: