MSM Complicity and Enablement in the Lies of the Bush Administration

[Michael Tee]

from David Fiderer in today's Hufpo:

There's a difference between lying and dissembling. Dan Bartlett lied on Wednesday. Brian Williams and David Gregory merely dissembled. Yet the statements of all three are discredited by the same smoking gun, the one that has been hiding in plain sight for more than five years, and has been subject to a virtual news blackout at NBC News. This White House is beyond redemption. But it's time for NBC and other major networks to come clean.

The White House Lie:

    "The fact of the matter was the weapons of mass destruction weren't there. The intelligence was wrong. But that doesn't make people out to be liars or manipulators or propagandists. It makes them wrong." Dan Bartlett on CNN, May 28, 2008

The Smoking Gun: Anyone who read the newspapers with an ounce of common sense could figure out that the case for WMD was a sham. On March 7, 2003, 11 days before Bush invaded, the nuclear weapons inspectors reported that there was zero evidence that Saddam had ever done anything to develop nuclear weapons since losing the Gulf War in 1991. Muhamed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency went far beyond offering an alternative analysis of the notorious aluminum tubes or those "documents" from Niger. He categorically said that they found no evidence. The Bush administration's response: Nothing, or at least nothing substantive. (ElBaradei's findings were subsequently validated by Bush's own inspections team, headed up by Charles Deufler.)

ElBaradei's report put the world on notice that the case for nuclear WMD was fatally flawed. When Dan Bartlett, John McCain, and everyone else at the White House refused to acknowledge that the U.N. inspectors had punctured their case for war, they became, to use Bartlett's words, "liars or manipulators or propagandists."

The Smoking Gun That Discredits NBC: Because ElBaradei's report struck at the heart of the case for war, any reputable news organization would consider its substance to be extremely important. That evening, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw reported nothing about ElBaradei's findings. On CNBC, The News with Brian Williams also reported nothing. NBC's virtual blackout of the story persisted, and thereby skewed its coverage of almost everything relating to WMD and the decision to go to war. (The most notable pre-war exceptions to the blackout were Tim Russert's defamatory smears against the nuclear inspectors.)

There are countless examples where NBC's reporting and commentary sidestepped the full import of ElBaradei's pre-war disclosure. Chris Matthews' remarks are typical:

    "I mean, that was a critical part of a lot of people who supported this war -- regular people, journalists, et cetera, said, I don't like the idea of going to war, but if they've got nuclear weapons, I guess we have to. And that was a successful trump card and it was a deal maker for a lot of people who supported the war, middle of the road people." Chris Matthews on Hardball, October 19, 2005

NBC's blackout continues to this day, thereby extending Dan Bartlett a veneer of plausibility, and enabling Brian Williams and David Gregory to dissemble so freely, as they did on Wednesday:

    "I think he [Scott McClellan] is wrong...I think the questions were asked. I think we pushed. I think we prodded. I think we challenged the president. I think not only those of us in the White House press corps did that, but others in the rest of the landscape of the media did that. If there wasn't a debate in this country, then maybe the American people should think about, why not? Where was Congress? Where was the House? Where was the Senate? Where was public opinion about the war? What did the former president believe about the pre-war intelligence? He agreed that -- in fact, Bill Clinton agreed that Saddam had WMD.


    "The right questions were asked. I think there's a lot of critics -- and I guess we can count Scott McClellan as one -- who thinks that, if we did not debate the president, debate the policy in our role as journalists, if we did not stand up and say, this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. And I respectfully disagree" David Gregory on Hardball, May 28, 2008 .

(Gregory's allusion to Bill Clinton is a standard smoke-and-mirrors ploy used by the right wing. Bill Clinton never believed that the pre-war intelligence was sufficiently reliable to support military action. Both he and Senator Clinton advocated the use of continued inspections instead of military action.)

    "I've always put it this way. In Katrina, the evidence was right next to us. Sadly, we saw fellow Americans, in some cases, floating past face down. We knew what had just happened. We weren't allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors. I was in Kuwait for the buildup of the war. And yes, we heard from the Pentagon on my cell phone the minute they heard us report something that they didn't like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary". Brian Williams on The Today Show, May 28, 2008

Andrea Mitchell was in the room when El Baradei gave his report to the U.N. and to the world. "We weren't allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors," is Williams' way of throwing sand in the face of NBC's viewers.

Here's the bottom line: Anyone (e.g. Colin Powell, George Tenet, Dan Bartlett) who says, "We relied on flawed intelligence," is speaking in bad faith, because after March 7, 2003 he acted in bad faith. And any journalist who accepts that rationalization at face value is not doing his job.

[BT]

WMD's are not restricted to nuclear weapons.

This is nothing more than a tantrum.

[Plane]

Gregory's allusion to Bill Clinton is a standard smoke-and-mirrors ploy used by the right wing. Bill Clinton never believed that the pre-war intelligence was sufficiently reliable to support military action.

That isn't what Bill Clinton says.

[Michael Tee]

<<WMD's are not restricted to nuclear weapons.>>

Well, nukes are certainly first and foremost in everyone's mind when WMD are discussed.  They're the only one with a proven track record of mass destruction and the others never even came close, their power is all just theory and speculation.  So when people are stirred up over WMD and egged on to go to war over it, any reasonable leader would know that nukes were the leading cause of that fear and any responsible newscaster would figure that news about nukes would be something the people might need to know in a democracy, when their leaders are explaining the need for war.

<<This is nothing more than a tantrum.>>

It's actually a well-organized, articulate indictment of a "news" medium that failed abysmally and disgraced and discredited itself in the process.

[Michael Tee]

<<Gregory's allusion to Bill Clinton is a standard smoke-and-mirrors ploy used by the right wing. Bill Clinton never believed that the pre-war intelligence was sufficiently reliable to support military action.>>

plane's comment:  That isn't what Bill Clinton says.

=======================================================================

It's the writer's conclusion of what Bill Clinton believed, based on Bill Clinton's actions.  I find it very convincing.  The fact that Bill Clinton never spoke to confirm or deny this conclusion does not affect the validity of the conclusion itself in any way, pro or con.  The conclusion stands on its own two legs, Clinton having nether affirmed or denied it, and since it is consistent entirely with Clinton's actions, it is obviously correct.

[Plane]

<<WMD's are not restricted to nuclear weapons.>>

"... They're the only one with a proven track record of mass destruction and the others never even came close, their power is all just theory and speculation.  "

Isn't there a track record of effectiveness in poisonous gas?
That is a WMD that Saddam actually ordered , produced and used.


BTW is is well accepted that Saddam had a large warehouse full of valuable Yellocake (partially refined Urainum) why didn't he sell it?

[Plane]

<<Gregory's allusion to Bill Clinton is a standard smoke-and-mirrors ploy used by the right wing. Bill Clinton never believed that the pre-war intelligence was sufficiently reliable to support military action.>>

plane's comment:  That isn't what Bill Clinton says.

=======================================================================

It's the writer's conclusion of what Bill Clinton believed, based on Bill Clinton's actions.  I find it very convincing.  The fact that Bill Clinton never spoke to confirm or deny this conclusion does not affect the validity of the conclusion itself in any way, pro or con.  The conclusion stands on its own two legs, Clinton having nether affirmed or denied it, and since it is consistent entirely with Clinton's actions, it is obviously correct.

This writer is unaware that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq on several occasions.

[Michael Tee]

<<Isn't there a track record of effectiveness in poisonous gas?>>

No, there isn't.  I believe the largest casualty count for gas was in the Battle of Ypres in WWI, when it took the Allied troops by surprise and without gas masks.  Even then, the death toll was only in the thousands and only because the troops were massed in huge numbers.  Contrast that with the casualties of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and you can easily see what a crock the gas is as a WMD. 

<<That is a WMD that Saddam actually ordered , produced and used.>>

Well, lotsa  luck in bringing mass destruction to the North American land mass with it.  Even a Sarin attack in a crowded Japanese subway managed to kill only 12 people.  Hell, an American teenager can do more damage in a well-planned high-school massacre, using only sporting goods.           

<<BTW is is well accepted that Saddam had a large warehouse full of valuable Yellocake (partially refined Urainum) why didn't he sell it?>>

Never heard of it and don't believe it.  I remember once touring the Ford factory in River Rouge, Michigan, where the Great Lakes ore carriers were being unloaded at the company docks and our guide told us in how many hours that ore would be the body of a new car.  To claim that Saddam had WMD because he owned a warehouse full of yellowcake is kinda like dumping a ton of iron ore in my backyard and claiming that I own a Ford automobile.

[Plane]

<<Isn't there a track record of effectiveness in poisonous gas?>>

No, there isn't.  I believe the largest casualty count for gas was in the Battle of Ypres in WWI, when it took the Allied troops by surprise and without gas masks.  Even then, the death toll was only in the thousands and only because the troops were massed in huge numbers.  Contrast that with the casualties of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and you can easily see what a crock the gas is as a WMD. 

<<That is a WMD that Saddam actually ordered , produced and used.>>

Well, lotsa  luck in bringing mass destruction to the North American land mass with it.  Even a Sarin attack in a crowded Japanese subway managed to kill only 12 people.  Hell, an American teenager can do more damage in a well-planned high-school massacre, using only sporting goods.           

<<BTW is is well accepted that Saddam had a large warehouse full of valuable Yellocake (partially refined Urainum) why didn't he sell it?>>

Never heard of it and don't believe it.  I remember once touring the Ford factory in River Rouge, Michigan, where the Great Lakes ore carriers were being unloaded at the company docks and our guide told us in how many hours that ore would be the body of a new car.  To claim that Saddam had WMD because he owned a warehouse full of yellowcake is kinda like dumping a ton of iron ore in my backyard and claiming that I own a Ford automobile.

The casualtys of Gas attack during the Iran Iraq war are poorly counted , but thousands of disabled surviors carry on with a meager stipend and damaged lungs. The Kurds killed number in the thousands no doubt.

Part of the utility of the gas attack is availible even when the gas is not used , the enemy must remain encumbered with the equipment for survival of a gas attack , also the human wave attacks of the young Iranians was well suited to gas repulsion , a little gas would cause a lot of panic.


Yes ,Saddam had tonns of partially refined uranium ore in storeage , why? He didn't seem to have the other necessacerys of A-bomb building ready to use , so was this just long range planning? This is like finding that you had bought a tonn of ore and piled it in your backyard with no explanation offered.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

The Halabja poison gas attack occurred in the period March 16?17, 1988, during the Iran-Iraq War. Chemical weapons (CW) were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja, killing thousands of people, most of them civilians (3,200-5,000 dead on the spot and 7,000-10,000 injured[1]). Thousands more died of horrific complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[2] The incident, which Human Rights Watch (HRW) defined as an act of genocide, was as of 2008 the largest-scale chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare

The Iran-Iraq War began in 1980 when Iraq attacked Iran. Early in the conflict, Iraq began to employ mustard gas and tabun delivered by bombs dropped from airplanes; approximately 5% of all Iranian casualties are directly attributable to the use of these agents.[citation needed]

About 100,000 Iranian soldiers were victims of Iraq's chemical attacks. Many were hit by mustard gas. The official estimate does not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans. Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers immediately, according to official reports. Of the 80,000 survivors, some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[31][32][33] Iraq also targeted Iranian civilians with chemical weapons. Many thousands were killed in attacks on populations in villages and towns, as well as front-line hospitals. Many still suffer from the severe effects........

I know ,I know. Wici-knoledge is subject to suspicion , well what sorce would you like me to check?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm    ?

[Michael Tee]

<<The casualtys of Gas attack during the Iran Iraq war are poorly counted , but thousands of disabled surviors carry on with a meager stipend and damaged lungs. The Kurds killed number in the thousands no doubt.>>

Yeah.  That's EXACTLY what I mean.  "thousands"

<<Part of the utility of the gas attack is availible even when the gas is not used , the enemy must remain encumbered with the equipment for survival of a gas attack , also the human wave attacks of the young Iranians was well suited to gas repulsion , a little gas would cause a lot of panic.>>

There are lots of things that cause soldiers to pack extra pounds, and a lot of things that can cause troops to panic, but nothing that I'm aware of that poses an existential threat to America.  Nothing that can justify a pre-emptive invasion.


<<Yes ,Saddam had tonns of partially refined uranium ore in storeage , why? He didn't seem to have the other necessacerys of A-bomb building ready to use , so was this just long range planning? This is like finding that you had bought a tonn of ore and piled it in your backyard with no explanation offered.>>

Why can't he have a ton of yellowcake ore?  He's the leader of a sovereign state.  There's obviously no immediate threat.  If THAT was the casus belli, it's obviously bogus.

[Plane]

<<The casualtys of Gas attack during the Iran Iraq war are poorly counted , but thousands of disabled surviors carry on with a meager stipend and damaged lungs. The Kurds killed number in the thousands no doubt.>>

Yeah.  That's EXACTLY what I mean.  "thousands"

<<Part of the utility of the gas attack is availible even when the gas is not used , the enemy must remain encumbered with the equipment for survival of a gas attack , also the human wave attacks of the young Iranians was well suited to gas repulsion , a little gas would cause a lot of panic.>>

There are lots of things that cause soldiers to pack extra pounds, and a lot of things that can cause troops to panic, but nothing that I'm aware of that poses an existential threat to America.  Nothing that can justify a pre-emptive invasion.


<<Yes ,Saddam had tonns of partially refined uranium ore in storeage , why? He didn't seem to have the other necessacerys of A-bomb building ready to use , so was this just long range planning? This is like finding that you had bought a tonn of ore and piled it in your backyard with no explanation offered.>>

Why can't he have a ton of yellowcake ore?  He's the leader of a sovereign state.  There's obviously no immediate threat.  If THAT was the casus belli, it's obviously bogus.

At the point of 2003 Saddam was still in power because he had a cease fire agreement with the US and the other allies. The conditions of this ceasefire included free access of inspection teams and destruction of WMD facilitys. Why he tossed out the Inspection teams while he had nothing to hide from them is a mystery , but that by itself was a cause to go to war , it was sufficiently suspicious given Saddams history.

Yeah.  That's EXACTLY what I mean.  "thousands"

I do not understand , what do you mean by "thousands"?

[Plane]

In the midst of the 1998 standoff over Iraqi weapons inspections, an almost frantic editorial ran in the Washington Post (8/28/98). Brimming with urgency, the editorialists declared that "22 days have now passed without United Nations inspections of Saddam Hussein?s weapons-making capabilities. That is 22 days during which he could work unimpeded to develop chemical, biological and nuclear arms. This is a dictator who has used chemical weapons, on his own people and on his enemies, and who would use them again."

It wasn?t the first reminder from the Post that Iraq has used gas. From time to time the editorialists drop references to "Saddam Hussein, who used chemical weapons against his own people" (3/13/02). "He has used such weapons before," they note (1/7/99), "against his own people." "Saddam Hussein has indeed used poison gas to murder thousands of his own people" (2/3/02). "He is a man who had used chemical weapons on his own people" (6/8/91)--and he also heads "a regime that has used poison gas on its own people" (11/13/97).

Saddam Hussein?s use of poison gas in the 1980?s is, for the Post, Exhibit A--proof that 1) Iraq poses a terrifying threat to the world; 2) the global oil embargo on Iraq must be maintained; 3) the U.S. and other countries should periodically bomb Iraq when it is seen to be defying Washington; and 4) the U.S. should overthrow the Iraqi government by force when the right moment arises.


"Only Saddam Hussein's removal from power can ultimately erase the threat that Iraq currently poses to its region and the world," the Post wrote in a typical editorial (12/17/98)--proving the point a few paragraphs later by once again recalling Saddam?s use, a decade earlier, of the aforementioned "weapons...against his own people."




http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1121



--the Reagan administration was resolute. In the face of Saddam?s brazen use of outlawed weapons of mass destruction, it issued a stern verbal reprimand. In the same prepared statement, read out by State Department spokesperson John Hughes, it said: "The United States strongly condemns the prohibited use of chemical weapons wherever it occurs." That was the totality of the U.S. response.*


"Privately, some officials were less harsh on the Iraqis," the Post reported in a news article the following day (3/6/84). They said it was "not surprising" that Iraq would use gas, given the fierce Iranian attacks in which "any major crack in the Iraqis' defenses could bring down the army and the government."

Meanwhile, the administration?s pro-Saddam tilt continued.

..................................



In March 1988, as the war wound down, Iraq was once again accused of using chemical weapons. This time, Saddam?s target was not fundamentalist Iran, but "his own people"--rebellious Iraqi Kurdish villagers who were thought to have been aiding the Iranian enemy.** The geopolitical equation had now changed somewhat; although top Reagan administration officials were still committed to the pro-Iraq tilt, Iran was no longer seen to be as much of a threat, and Iraq?s use of gas this time was not directly contributing to the struggle against the ayatollahs. Human rights groups and some in Congress, led by Sen. Claiborne Pell (R.--R.I.), were decrying Iraq?s targeting of civilians.


.....................................

Presumably, Saddam Hussein?s chemical weapons were at least as deadly in the 1980s--when the Washington Post was serenely explaining that Reagan?s toothless admonitions were the only realistic option--as they have been afterward, when even a comprehensive U.N. embargo and the occasional airstrike are not enough for the Post.

Today, as the Washington Post demands bombings, sieges and the violent overthrow of the Iraqi government for merely possessing chemical weapons, it?s enlightening to read what the paper had to say back in the mid-'80s (4/1/85) about the U.S. response to Iraq?s actual use of them:

[Michael Tee]

<<I do not understand , what do you mean by "thousands"?>>

My point was, that as an alleged WMD, gas is pretty pathetic, because its greatest casualty count ("thousands") pales into insignificance when compared with the casualty counts of nukes.

[Lanya]

The weapons inspectors weren't tossed out by Saddam. We ordered them out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-inspectors-iraq_x.htm

[BT]

 As weapons inspectors return to Baghdad after a four-year absence, BBC News Online examines key moments in their chequered relationship with Iraq's leadership.

28 February 1991: Gulf War ends, leaving Iraq subject to UN sanctions and arms inspections.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

23 February 1998: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan announces a deal on weapons inspections after meeting Saddam Hussein in Baghdad.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

14 November 1998: Baghdad tells the UN it is willing to allow inspections to resume.

17 November 1998: Unscom inspectors return to Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

1 March 2000: Hans Blix assumes the post of Unmovic executive chairman.

3 May 2002: Unmovic and Iraqi officials hold talks - Mr Annan says they are the first to take place at technical level since December 1998.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

31 July 2002: Richard Butler tells a US Senate committee that Iraq stepped up the production of chemical and biological weapons after UN inspections ended - and might even be close to developing a nuclear bomb.

1 August 2002: Iraq says the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is welcome in Baghdad for "technical talks".

12 September 2002: President Bush addresses the UN General Assembly and warns Iraq that military action will be unavoidable if it does not comply with UN resolutions on disarmament.

16 September 2002: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says he has received a letter from the Iraqi Government offering to allow the unconditional return of weapons inspectors.

24 September 2002: Britain publishes a report on Iraq's weapons programmes.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

1 October 2002: Hans Blix and Iraq agree practical arrangements for the return of weapons inspectors. US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejects it and says the US wants a tough new UN Security Council resolution.

11 October 2002: The US Senate follows the House of Representatives in authorising President Bush to use force against Iraq.

15 October 2002: Saddam Hussein wins 100% of the vote in a referendum on a new presidential term for him.

25 October 2002: US formally proposes a new resolution on disarming Iraq to the UN Security Council.

4 November 2002: Saddam Hussein says Iraq will comply with a new UN resolution as long as it does not serve as an excuse for US military action.

8 November 2002: UN Security Council unanimously passes a new resolution on Iraq's disarmament, warning of "serious consequences" for material breaches.

12 November 2002: Iraq's parliament rejects the UN resolution.

13 November 2002 Iraq's Government accepts the UN resolution.

18 November 2002: Hans Blix leads UN inspectors back to Baghdad to start their mission.
      
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm