From WNYC in New York, this is NPR's On the Media.

I'm Bob Garfield.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

Something remarkable in the news this week, the mainstream media have risen in a body

to remark on the Bush administration's long-standing insinuation that

Saddam Hussein was somehow involved in the 9-11 attacks, an insinuation that, according to a recent

Washington post-poll, seven out of ten Americans now believe. No, the president never said it explicitly,

but 9-11 and Saddam have made regular appearances in the same sentence, as on May 1st, when the president never said it explicitly, but 9-11 and Saddam have made regular appearances in the

same sentence, as on May 1st when the president said, the terrorists and their supporters declared

war on the United States, and war is what they got. But then on Wednesday, the president said this.

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September the 11th.

Well, you know what he meant.

And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Ries

Rice said much the same this week.

Some political analysts believe it was damage control after Vice President Dick Cheney,

who didn't get the memo, went on Meet the Press last Sunday,

still vaguely pointing fingers at Saddam.

The president's corrective has led to a flood of coverage on all the networks and cable news stations,

also all the major papers, but only one paper fact-checked Mr. Cheney after his chat with Tim Russert. Of course, Tim Russert

didn't. The Washington Post did. And the Washington Post reporter who seems to have spent the most

time fact-checking the president on his justifications for war is Walter Pinkis, who's seen wars in

Korea and Vietnam and has plugged away at the post for decades.

...