PBS gave Perle hour to repeat debunked claims about Iraqi WMDs and links to Al Qaeda
On the PBS series America at a Crossroads, former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, in an April 17 segment titled "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom," made a series of assertions about the Iraq war that have already been shown to be false. He claimed that "all of the intelligence available to us suggested that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. ... We all believed that, which is why I object to referring to some of the things that were said before the war as 'lies.' " In fact, the Bush administration made several statements about Saddam's WMD capabilities that "all of the intelligence available to us" did not support. Perle then claimed that prewar Iraq had a working relationship with Al Qaeda, a claim that has been debunked by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Finally, Perle claimed that Osama bin Laden's "network has been destroyed," even though U.S. intelligence officials' have reportedly said that bin Laden is rebuilding his network.
According to a November 1, 2006, New York Times article, Robert MacNeil, the host of the America at a Crossroads series, said, "Anybody who thinks that this is a piece of pro-Perle propaganda will be quite surprised." But although Perle, who narrated the segment, speaks with people who are critical of his positions on the war, the program never corrected Perle's false assertions. An April 17 New York Times review of the Perle segment noted that "Brian Lapping, the British producer who first proposed a film about Mr. Perle, turned out to be his friend. Mr. Lapping later recused himself from the project."
In the "Case for War" segment, Perle spoke with Stacy Bannerman, an author and member of Military Families Speak Out, at a May 2006 Iraq war protest in Washington, D.C. Bannerman said that the "scandal is that Americans' lifeblood and hundreds of billions of dollars are being sent to sustain an occupation that was never needed, for a war based on lies." She asked Perle, "Why did you think we had to go into Iraq?" Perle responded by claiming that "all of the intelligence available to us suggested that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction," adding: "We all believed that, which is why I object to referring to some of the things that were said before the war as 'lies.' "
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, not all of the available intelligence supported the Bush administration's claims about Saddam Hussein's purported WMDs. For example, both President Bush and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell claimed that Iraq had attempted to purchase aluminum tubes that, as Bush put it in an October 7, 2002, speech, are "needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." U.S. intelligence agencies, however, disagreed over the purpose of the tubes. The Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research found that the tubes were ill-suited for uranium enrichment, and their findings were included in the classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided to Congress in October 2002, and, reportedly, in the president's one-page summary of the NIE.
Similarly, Bush claimed during his October 5, 2002, radio address that "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons," even though the available intelligence did not justify such an unequivocal statement. A September 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency report found "no reliable information" to substantiate the claim that Iraq was producing or stockpiling chemical weapons. Moreover, while the intelligence community believed Iraq possessed biological agents that could be quickly produced and weaponized, the October 2002 NIE made clear that the agencies lacked hard evidence to back up this assumption: "We had no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons, agents, or stockpiles at Baghdad's disposal."
Perle claimed on the program that he has "heard many times the assertion that there was no link between Iraq and terrorism," which he called "simply false." But rather than claiming a vague "link between Iraq and terrorism," Perle specifically asserted a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda on the program: "We know that Saddam Hussein's intelligence apparatus trained Al Qaeda terrorists. We saw the training facilities, and we have testimony from people who were there when the training took place." Both before and after the war began, numerous members of the Bush administration -- including Bush, Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- also asserted a specific link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, as a March 2004 report by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform documents. But as Media Matters has noted, a September 8, 2006, Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded, "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak [training facility in Iraq] or anywhere else in Iraq." Moreover, the Senate report indicated that prewar assessments were uncertain, at best:
(U) The January 2003 Iraqi Support for Terrorism noted that uncorroborated reporting since 1999 indicated that Iraq sponsored terrorism training for al-Qa'ida at the Salman Pak facility. Iraqi Support for Terrorism also said that:
Reporting about al-Qa'ida activity at Salman Pak -- ultimately sourced to three Iraqi defectors -- surged after 11 September. The defectors claimed that al-Qa'ida and other non-Iraqis engaged in special, operations training at Salman Pak. It was subsequently determined, however, that at least one of these defectors, whose story appeared in [REDACTED] magazine, had embellished and exaggerated his access.
Others repeated similar information but apparently did not have first-hand access to it. No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak.
(U) The CIA noted that additional information was needed before validating the information, because of sourcing difficulties and the fact that, at the time, al-Qa'ida could have offered such training at its own camps in Afghanistan.
As Media Matters noted, a March 2, 2004, Knight-Ridder article cited "a secret report by the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence that was updated in January 2003" in reporting that "[s]enior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings. Moreover, the U.S. intelligence community never concluded that those meetings produced an operational relationship, American officials said." Moreover, as Media Matters has noted, the September 8, 2006, Senate Intelligence Committee report broadly concluded that, based on postwar evidence, "Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qa'ida to provide material or operational support."
Later in the program, Perle discussed the war on terrorism with Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the Arabic newspaper Al Quds, who stated that with the 9-11 attacks, Osama bin Laden wanted "to drag the Americans to the Middle East, where he can fight them in his own turf." Atwan remarked that "it seems [bin Laden has] trapped you." In response, Perle claimed that bin Laden "is cowering somewhere in hiding. Much of his network has been destroyed." But a February 19 New York Times article reported that, according to "American intelligence and counterterrorism officials," Al Qaeda senior leaders "have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border. American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan."
From the segment of PBS' America at a Crossroads titled "The Case for War: In Defense of Freedom":
PERLE (voiceover): These demonstrators have gathered on the [National] Mall and placed a pair of boots to commemorate every American soldier killed in Iraq. I talked to one of the organizers of the rally, Stacy Bannerman, whose husband served in Iraq.
BANNERMAN: Do you realize that within the last 48 hours, I've gotten notification that two more of my friends' children have died because of injuries that they sustained in Iraq? We need to get out of that country. The scandal is that Americans' lifeblood and hundreds of billions of dollars are being sent to sustain an occupation that was never needed, for a war based on lies. Why did you think we had to go into Iraq?
PERLE: Well, all of the intelligence available to us suggested that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Not only available to us, but available to the United Nations, to the French, to the Germans. There were -- even [former head of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission] Hans Blix, the inspector, believed that Saddam was hiding things. We all believed that, which is why I object to referring to some of the things that were said before the war as "lies."
BANNERMAN: The lie I refer to is the lie that was sold to the American people that invading Iraq was somehow directly related to the attacks on America. That was a manipulation of the fear and the sorrow and the pain of the American people.
PERLE: I didn't hear statements to the effect that Iraq was responsible for 9-11. I did hear the argument, which I think is a valid argument, that weapons of mass destruction, in the hands of dictators who have relationships with terrorists, poses a danger to the United States and one that we have to find a response to.
[...]
PERLE: But I believe the case for intervening in Iraq was and remains valid. I've heard many times the assertion that there was no link between Iraq and terrorism, and that assertion is simply false. Abu Nidal, a well-known terrorist, lived and worked in Baghdad with the full support of the government of Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein' s intelligence apparatus trained Al Qaeda terrorists. We saw the training facilities, and we have testimony from people who were there when the training took place. There were dozens of links between terrorist activity, terrorist organizations, Saddam Hussein' s intelligence apparatus, and even Al Qaeda. And the people who say there were no such links are simply wrong. Leading politicians from both political parties believed in Saddam' s sponsorship of terrorism before the invasion of Iraq.
[...]
ATWAN: I met Osama bin Laden, and he was actually very keen to drag the Americans to the Middle East, where he can fight them in his own turf. It seems when he went there to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it seems you played to his hands. It seems he trapped you.
PERLE: First of all, he' s cowering somewhere in hiding. Much of his network has been destroyed.
ATWAN: You are trapped in Iraq. Now Osama bin Laden enjoying himself. He doesn't need to go and blow up the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. He got, you know, a very fat 140,000 Marines and American soldiers, and he open a branch, a franchise in Iraq now. There is no reconstruction process at all. There is no security. There is no law and order.
"Well, all of the intelligence available to us suggested that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."
All of the intelligence? Amazing. After all this time, they're still peddling these lies.
Our "intelligence" were the receipts of the WMDs that we sold to Saddam over a decade ago. Sure, he had them at one point, to use against Iran, but he later used them against his own people. However, those weapons were antiques (by modern weapon standards) by the time we go there for Gulf War 2: Occupation for Oil.
Beside don't be too hard on PBS about this one. They probably didn't have a choice, but to air this absurd fluff piece (that had a viewership of about 1,000 households) just to appease the Bush Regime so that they can keep get some tax money to stay on the air and/or not get its license pulled.
Didn't King George appoint one of his toadies as head of PBS? This is probably the result.
I've seen numerous witnesses interviewed who have stated that the intelligence was cherrypicked...articles have appeared in the British Press confirming this. Yet, our sycophantic talking heads can't be bothered to even look into it. They'll milk this Va. Tech shooting for several weeks, or until some celebrity does something stupid that they can talk about endlessly.
Investigative journalism is all but dead in this country.
Doh....I almost forgot...they've got the Alec Baldwin story to chase now. How many weeks can they devote to that?
He did indeed, and the toadie in question is Ken Tomlinson.
Don't fool yourself with the garbage "for oil" argument. We could've just cut a deal with Saddam, sold him some cheap weapons etc, and gotten all the oil we wanted...war was certainly not the cheapest method for to get more gas.
The invasion/war was about "shocking and aweing" Middle Easterners and some relatively good-natured imperialism. The occupation was about creating a democratic ally smack dab in the middle of the region.
Result: We owned Saddam. We let the insurgents/terrorists know that we would own them if they didnt' stick to the shadows and car bombs/IED's. More people are dying than were before. Doh.
Depends on who is footing the bill. Exxon doesn't care if the government is bankrupt.
You arent really getting the oil argument. It isnt about GETTING oil its about PROFITING from the oil. The Iraqi oil industry was nationalized. NOW the American oil corporations will get contracts to extract and market the oil which it didnt have a chance at before and is MUCH more profitable than just brokering oil sales. It isnt about can we GET oil its about how much profit does Exxon get from Iraqi oil.
"We could've just cut a deal with Saddam, sold him some cheap weapons etc, and gotten all the oil we wanted..." --Dexteritas
I disagree. This administration was gung-ho to prove we weren't sissies after 9-11 and they had apparently decided pretty early on to make Saddam the convenient patsy (It didn't hurt that Saddam was a pretty unwise and bad guy to begin with). Looking at the politics and the rhetoric of the time, it is inconceivable to me how the Bush Administration could have ever made a deal with Saddam.
While I somewhat agree that this war wasn't entirely about oil, we can't ignore it as a major contributor. After all, wasn't Iraqi oil supposed to pay for (at the very least, the majority of) reconstruction costs? Wasn't it argued that Iraq was a major threat to his oil rich neighbors?
This war was supposed to be utterly painless enough we could pass tax cuts right in the middle of it, by God.
Of course oil was a factor, if not the major factor. Does anybody really believe we'd be there if it weren't sitting on an ocean of oil? Really?
I've always liked to say "if Iraq's primary export was broccoli, we wouldn't be over there right now."
Does your car run on broccoli?
How many much American blood and treasure are you willing to spend, and how many Arabs are you willing to kill, to keep your car running?
I suggest this war is about two chief objectives:
1) Oil, not the aquisition of oil but the intent to turn off the taps and raise the price. Simple laws of supply and demand. Successful? You bet. Look at the record oil profits.
2) Create an excuse for permanent military bases in the region that were previously lacking and create an environment and staging platform with which they could make moves on their OTHER target...Iran. Successful? Certainly hope not.
This administration was gung-ho to prove we weren't sissies after 9-11 and they had apparently decided pretty early on to make Saddam the convenient patsy
According to several sources (Paul O'Neill, Mickey Herskowitz, et al), Bush was intent upon attacking Iraq prior to 9/11/01. As a matter of fact, throughout Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial," sources inside the administration make the same claim. This is one of the reasons why getting the minutes to Cheney's energy policy meetings have been so important, and why Cheney has fought tooth and nail for that not to happen.
Bush's machismo bravado is strictly for the ignorant masses: His base.
If you'll notice, the Bush administration continues to repeat the original false premises for the war in a 'relay' or 'tag team' approach. It's to stall, to keep confusion as the order of the day, sort of "holding back the wave."
They stopped having Bush say it, but continued having Cheney do it. After Cheney regurgitates it once again, he retreats from public view for several weeks. Then the media spends days, even weeks reporting that "Cheney said it again, despite it's not being true, according to (pick a Democrat, or as of more recently media personalities are coming forward to dismiss it as fiction)". When that dwindles to a trickle, one of the original neocons will resurrect it (Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney, Cliff May, Kate O'Beirne, Michael Ledeen, etc.) any neocon with a heavy investment in the truth not coming to light. They bang the "Everybody knew Saddam had WMD," "He used them on his own people," - noise, and more noise. Last week they had John Bolton making the rounds - on Jon Stewart's show, no less. He's not in the Bush administration anymore, and was illegitimately in it when he was! But there he was, filling up the airwaves with neocon dogma.
Democrats won the midterms, they won the majority, and you'd have to look high and low to find the left any better represented in the media than they were before the election. And they (we) were seriously under-represented in the media before 11/06.
Here's the point:
The questions that need to be asked (and answered) that would seriously blow the roof off the scandal that is this war don't get asked when the neocons are able to control the debate with confusion.
Everybody forgets that the UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq, and Saddam Hussein did not kick out the weapons' inspectors. The UN withdrew the inspectors from Iraq when it became clear that Bush was going to start bombing.
So what's the question that would unravel it all?
Exactly when did George W. Bush make the decision to attack Iraq? Was it before he demanded that Congress give him the authority to go to war with Iraq ("not that I have decided to do it, but because I want Saddam to think that you're all behind me, and that I have the power to unleash the U.S. military against Saddam at any time")?
Bush got Congress's authorization by agreeing to exhaust all other avenues, and to let the inspectors do their job. And the inspectors were doing it. After Bush got the authority from Congress, nothing had changed which merited a declaration of war. Weapons inspectors were still inspecting, without incident. As of March 6, 2003, less than 2 weeks before he ordered the bombs to drop, Bush held a press conference where he said, "I have not decided on military action at this point."
So what was the deciding factor for "the Decider"?
It took the discovery of a second set of secret British memos exposing the fact that the Brits were apprised in July, 2002 that the war with Iraq was set - months before Bush hit up Congress for authorization saying he needed it to bluff), before the question was asked openly in 2005 (see Helen Thomas). But the media allowed Bush to dissemble and retreat, and they haven't revisited it since.
We're already deep into another election cycle with candidates who voted to give Bush authorization, from both parties, and later claimed to have been duped. But they still support the endeavor, they support keeping troops in Iraq, and refuse to call for an investigation much less Bush's impeachment.
I suffered through Perle's "PBS hour of lies" and I won't honor him or otherwise waste my time any further.
How these guys can still repeat these memes is stupifying. Perle, Wolfowitz and the other neocons at PNAC have much to answer for. The correct intelligence was there as well as discredited intelligence. They chose the latter. But they wanted a war and they got it. They did lie and continue to lie. I wonder if it asauges (sp) their guilty conscience - if indeed they have a conscience - to keep telling themselves they aren't liars.
I think they must maintain the charade to keep themselves out of prison. If they admit the truth, they'll all be subject to criminal prosecution. This war was a naked power grab and war-profiteering venture. I think it's funny that Bush keeps referring to "artificial timetables for withdrawal", when all the reasons they gave us to start the war were, in fact, artificial.
Shouldn't he be down in South America preparing for the all the Bushies fleeing the upcoming subpeonas?
I was watching this with my wife the other night. She made me change the channel because I was screaming so loudly at the television when he made those ridiculous statements.
I think Richard Perle forgot April 17 is not April Fool's day.
As it was said: "Who's the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
Okay, it may have come from "Star Wars", but it's extremely relevent. The problem is the members of the Bush Regime that keeps pushing these talking points, or the media for being such whores... the problem is that the public at large is buying this stuff up or they are so apathetic they don't care.
The second one (apathy) worries me more than anything.
If you want to get really depressed, watch one of those "man in the street" things where most of the people can't tell you who the Vice President is. That's why these NeoClown liars get away with it.
You get better results sometimes talking to the man on the street your self. I had an interesting conversation with a bible literalist recently. On the recent Supreme Court abortion desicion, my coments came out of her mouth before I could make them. She agreed with my coments about abortion opponets. Imus came up and we found nothing to disagree about, VT also. At that piont we mutually retreated from politics and had a pleasent conversation over less intence subjects. Gave me a minor glow for a while, and I hope her also. No big deal, but nice.
Local sunday From Seattle had an editorial letter on Imus. Media matters was mentioned as the evil leftwing machine that took down fair Imus. I sent a reply in I hope the spirit of the site, mentioned O'rielly's opinion, mentioned his, Imus's replacement, and misspelled slightly 4 words. Didn't see it today. The paper is a bit rightsie tightsie.
And the Rove propoganda machine plays that apathy like a fiddle, while New Rome burns.
It appears to me that a defining trait of neoconservatism is megalomania. To neocons any evidence or logic that does not support their theories is considered non-existent. Their crackpot beliefs are paramount.
PBS is still the closest thing to "fair and balanced" TV news we have. Unfortunately, they have come under pressure, under pain of losing their federal funding.
It's all well and good for Perle to have his piece but he should have been countered by, say, Ray McGovern.
After a dozen years of being systematically weakened by a succession of Republican-led Houses, PBS may recover it's former reputation in full... and quickly.
This Friday (at 9pm EDT) will mark the return of Bill Moyers on PBS, with 'Bill Moyers Journal'... the show will look at the U.S. Attorney dismissals, among other things.
Other things?
You mention that something should've countered the nonsense broadcast, and cited above: Also on Friday's show, they'll mark the four year anniversary of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo-op aboard the Lincoln, and (according to an AP item about the upcoming show) "In a commentary, Moyers will assess the war's crushing cost".
It should be good stuff... the perfect antedote to the nonsense cited above.
Can't wait until Friday?
The same Moyers team has for us, on Wednesday night at 9pm EDT, a show titled ""Buying the War"...
The same AP item describes it as "a special examination of how the Bush administration marketed the war to the American people — and how the media, with few exceptions, played along."
Sounds like even better stuff.
The AP item also incudes, in it's description of Wenesday's "Buying the War":
"...'Buying the War' asks: How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between saddam hussein and 9/11 go largely unreported?"
...which, when contrasted with what the above item cites, reminds me of the addage that tells us "It's better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness."
[And you mentioned about something to counter what has been cited in the above item: Well, I myself think that the nonsense broadcast and cited above, was itself the thing that the hangers-on at PBS created, to 'counter' what it is you may watch, on PBS on Wednesday night, in "Buying the War"... the hacks there simply fired first, with the perle crap above.]
Ray McGovern is an anti-Semitic nut. Even PBS won't waste their time with him.
Pure B. S.
Couldn't you argue that PBS gave an hour to Perle so that he could increasingly make himself and his allies look like out-of-touch fools?
Possibly, I actually have no issue with them giving him an hour. Let these war criminals spew the lies so we can save them in history and teach generations about the crimes of Bush and his cronies. It will be similar to the Nazi crimes and we have video tape.
"...out-of-touch fools?"
Good point. As much as I am sometimes tempted to shout rebuttals at the TV or radio when I hear staunch neocons like Perle, I realize that it is good to sometimes just let them talk as much as they want. Let them reveal themselves for the delusional and dangerous fools they are. Informed people know what the neocons have wrought. Let everyone hear it for themselves and decide. The results of neocon theories applied to Iraq are clear.
I'm with you, Dex.
I thought Jenkins, Atwan, and Buchannan ate his lunch. Anyone who's informed (and not reality-proof), would have thought his arguments had been overtaken by facts. If the program was produced under right wing pressure, the wingnuts should be careful what they wish for. I would guess this one backfired.
There are so many examples. The public seems to be catching on. There are so many details, so many Neo-Cons Gone Wild (Please keep your shirts secured) a comprehensive examination(s) is(are) no doubt availible, acessible to them not so much. I think of the process called ossmosis as an analogy for the rate of information travel. Slow but through.
Utterly disgusting. PBS has totally gone over to the dark side now. They should be ashamed. As for Perle, he only read the intelligence he wanted to read, so he simply misspoke...and killed 700,000 people for a dark industrial/complex-Zionist agenda.
Acually per Altercation the show Buying the War, on PBS, coming up shows some of this site's points. Hope theres lots of viewers.
Wow, I've seen only the 'Security versus Liberty" and "The Brotherhood" episodes, and at times I wondered if I was watching a show put together by the neocons. Very odd series, it seems.
Interesting. After posting the above comment I did some 'net searching, and came across a critical Salon article that says the series "veers to the right". The article is highly critical of the Perle episode, the Salon article says "Why did this embarrassing film make the cut ?"
Here's what the article says about how the cons pressured PBS:
"Crossroads" came to the air as a result of right-wing pressure and intellectual timidity. The project began during the tenures of Ken Tomlinson and Michael Pack, two conservatives who held top positions at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the government-run nonprofit that oversees PBS and its more than 300 local affiliates. Tomlinson was a Bush hack whose mandate as CPB board chairman was to tilt PBS's programming to the right. To do that, Tomlinson paid a consultant $14,000 to vet the Bill Moyers program "Now" for liberal bias, and hired two ombudsmen to monitor PBS news programming. Outrage over these practices and a damning internal report forced Tomlinson to resign in 2005. Pack, a conservative documentarian -- his résumé includes a sympathetic doc about Newt Gingrich and a film called "Hollywood vs. Religion" narrated by Michael Medved -- was brought in as CPB's executive vice president to make PBS's programming more conservative.I'm waiting for the day when Amy Goodman has he own show on major TV media, that'll rattle some cages. I think it would be a profitable show as it would attract millions of arch conservatives much the way the Bil'0 Factor show attracts liberals who want to yell at the TV for awhile.
I failed to post a link to the Salon article .. here it is, it's very interesting:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/17/crossroads/print.html
Athiest, thanks for the information. I thought as much.
When I first posted here I had only read the transcript. That does not do it justice! It's actually reminiscent of Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose", aired in the 1970's in response to criticisms of liberal-friendliness at PBS, probably justified then. Perle is harshly criticized by a grieving war mother (not Cindy Sheehan) but it's coming from the emotion of her loss. Perle's response is presented as the voice of reason.
This was a point of view (thankfully a minority one now) and I have no problem with Perle presenting it unopposed. What concerns me is how the projected show counter-Perle never materialized, even with Tomlinson gone.
One thing that blows a hole on Perle's rewriting of history that "everybody thought" that Iraq had WMD's is the incident with the United Nation.
Perle failed to mention that the United States did not get U.N. approval to use force against Iraq. Perle failed to mention that the United Nation weapon inspectors found the Niger document to be a fraud within four hours of possessing the document. Perle failed to mention that the National Intelligence Estimate paper was loaded with caveats.
Perle has zero credibility.
"Perle failed to mention that the United States did not get U.N. approval to use force against Iraq."
Please tell us when the UN gave Clinton approval to launch a preemptive attack against Iraq in December 1998 and to drop bombs in Kosovo during the spring of 1999.
"Perle failed to mention that the United Nation weapon inspectors found the Niger document to be a fraud within four hours of possessing the document."
Did Perle mention that doucment as being the only intelligence regarding Niger? The administration had more intelligence than that one document. After all, both our government and the British government (Butler report) in 2004 said that Bush's 16 words in the 2003 SOTU were well-founded.
"Perle failed to mention that the National Intelligence Estimate paper was loaded with caveats."
As are al NIEs. You have to go with the consensus. There are caveats regarding the belief that man contributes to Global Warming. Do you go with the consensus, or do you fail to take action because of those caveats?
"Butler Report?" Try the Downing Street Memo. "The 'facts' were fixed around the policy."
I'm not surprised that you have never heard of the Butler Report. You leftists are ill-informed.
I have heard of the Butler report, I just dont accept it as the end all of debate. Remember that white paper British intelligence touted that turned out to be plagerized from an 11 year old thesis by an American college student. I am not suprised you say such things though, conservatives like you are SOOOO ignorant.
More delusions kevin. IF our government was agreed with the SOTU 16 words why did the CIA tell him to take it OUT until he agreed to attribute it to the British? Because we KNEW better. Niger doesnt even have control of their uranium. They couldnt sell anyone tons of yellowcake if they wanted to. The story was garbage and we were fairly sure of it. The British may be stubborn about it but the bottom line is there is ZERO evidence of it and its implausable to the point of lunacy. Lets say Niger COULD get uranium to Saddam, WHICH THEY COULDNT, what would the do with it? They already HAD 500 tons of the stuff. All their processing equipment was destroyed. So they would have to smuggle HUNDREDS OF TONS of it hundreds of miles. Clandestinly, while being watched with satellites and overflights, build the processing facility. Even though they COULDNT GET THE EQUIPMENT, due to the sanctions. Then somehow secretly process the uranium, which is virtually impossible, remember this is why we caught N Korea cheating. It is a ludicrous scenario, which is why they turned down an offer from the Congo to sell the uranium. To belive this is true STILL, you really have to want it since there is NO POSSIBLE reasonable argument its true.
"More delusions kevin. IF our government was agreed with the SOTU 16 words why did the CIA tell him to take it OUT until he agreed to attribute it to the British?"
That's incorrect. See FactCheck.
"Because we KNEW better. Niger doesnt even have control of their uranium. They couldnt sell anyone tons of yellowcake if they wanted to. The story was garbage and we were fairly sure of it. The British may be stubborn about it but the bottom line is there is ZERO evidence of it and its implausable to the point of lunacy."
Wrong on all counts. I think the Butler report, which includes a great deal of documentation, has more credibility than your words, which is backed up with no documentation.
"Lets say Niger COULD get uranium to Saddam, WHICH THEY COULDNT, what would the do with it?"
A bipartisan Senate Intelligence panel found in 2004 that Joe Wilson's report, "rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts."
The Washington Post also reported, "And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Have you leftists noticed that I provide sources to back up my assertions, while you offer just discredited talking points?
Well that is what Annenberg says but not what I have been hearing here is what Richard Armitage said
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010734.php
16 WORDS....Remember the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address? About how Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa? In the Scooter Libby trial today, the defense played a tape recording of a Bob Woodward interview with Richard Armitage and the subject came up. Here's what Armitage said:
Armitage: We're clean as a [expletive] whistle. And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.
....Woodward: It was taken out?
Armitage: Taken out. George said you can't do this.
Woodward: How come it wasn't taken out of the State of the Union then?
Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot
And there isn’t any question the CIA made Bush take the same claim OUT of his Cincinati speech
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/14/white.house.intel/
The White House has confirmed intelligence officials successfully excised a line in the president's speech in Cincinnati last October about Iraq seeking nuclear material from Niger.
As Wilson said in his op-ed
"Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." (every source I have discuss this backs this claim up)
The claim the CIA made that Wilsons report bolstered their claim came from him saying that the Niger Trade commissioner said Iraq had asked for trade tolks and he THOUGHT it was about uranium and IGNORED the fact that those talks took place and the same guy admitted uranium was never mentioned.
And Richard Armitage said differently, How does the WP explain the FACT that the CIA had the White House take this claim OUT of the Cincinnati speech which THEY ADMITTED?
You didn’t address the FACT that Iraq already HAD 500 tons of Uranium
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-e.htm
(U) Regarding uranium from Africa, the language of the NIE said:
Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA.
OR what the Iraqi Survey Group said about the Congo. The link is now classified but this is what they said
Indeed, the ISG report takes one additional step and says:
So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now.
The Clinton administration in its 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden said that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating. No one in the Clinton administration has come forth to say that indictment had false information in it.
It is also a fact that al Qaeda attacked us in the name of Iraq. Bin Laden in 1997 told CNN that he would send Bill Clinton "messages with no words" to avenge the deaths of Iraqi children.
"I've heard many times the assertion that there was no link between Iraq and terrorism, and that assertion is simply false. "
Why does Media Matters object to this? After all, Iraq was on the State Department's short list of state sponsors of terrorism during the ENTIRE Clinton administration. As far as connections to al Qaeda, one only has to read "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes to know that, as the Clinton administration claimed, there were numerous connections between Iraq and al Qaeda prior to the invasion.
Media Matters conveniently ignores the fact that the Clinton administration claimed for eight years that Saddam had WMD. They left office in January 2001 saying Saddam still had WMD. If they are going to call Perle a liar, they have to calls Bill Clinton, Al Gore, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Madeleine Albright, et. al. liars as well.
Good grief! You people still ludicrously claim a relation between Osama and Iraq?
Your evidence is pretty silly. Just because Clinton claims something doesn't mean it is true. Further, just because Osama claims something also doesn't mean it is true. Or do you really believe that just because Osama said he was attacking in the name of Iraq that that proved a relationship?
I want to ask if you are even serious, but then again, anyone who at this point, with all the evidence in, who still asserts an Iraq-AlQuadia relationship would makes such silly arguments.
"Good grief! You people still ludicrously claim a relation between Osama and Iraq?"
Read "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes. He lists numerous connections between al Qaeda and Iraq.
"Your evidence is pretty silly. Just because Clinton claims something doesn't mean it is true."
Well, in more cases what Clinton says is probably false. However, if the MMFA believes the claim that Saddam had WMD was false, then they should call Clinton a liar as well as those in the Bush 43 administration. MMFA needs to be consistent and honest with its readers.
"Further, just because Osama claims something also doesn't mean it is true. Or do you really believe that just because Osama said he was attacking in the name of Iraq that that proved a relationship?"
In this case, there is more credibility. Bin Laden in 1997 said he would send Clinton "messages with no words." In August 1998 he blew up two embassies in Africa. In October 2000 he blew up the USS Cole. In September 2001 he attacked the WTC and Pentagon. Seems to me he was serious in 1997 when he said he would send Clinton "messages with no words" to avenge the deaths of Iraqi children. (BTW, the UN concluded that sanctions killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Those sanctions were in place because Clinton said Iraq had WMD.)
"I want to ask if you are even serious, but then again, anyone who at this point, with all the evidence in, who still asserts an Iraq-AlQuadia relationship would makes such silly arguments."
I am serious, more serious than someone with your user name. After you have read "The Connection," get back to me.
If I read this book by a right-wing journalist with an axe to grind, will you read a report by the (Republican) Senate Intelligence Committee: Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments?
I've read that already. Your turn.
No they shouldnt. I showed direct, flat out LIES Bush told and there is a difference between broad statements of belief that are wrong and flat out lies like Bush told. This has been pointed out to you before. You keep parroting this propaganda. So tell us how many times do you need to repeat it before it magically becomes true?
"No they shouldnt. I showed direct, flat out LIES Bush told and there is a difference between broad statements of belief that are wrong and flat out lies like Bush told. This has been pointed out to you before. You keep parroting this propaganda. So tell us how many times do you need to repeat it before it magically becomes true?"
So your argument is that Clinton was so fooled by Saddam that he believed Iraq had WMD as late of January 2001. So any claims Clinton made for eight years about Saddam having WMD are not lies because Clinton was fooled.
Then Bush comes into office and, within a matter a months, figures out what Clinton was incapable of, i.e., Saddam DID NOT have WMD. So Bush decided he would lie to the American people and hide what he discovered. But what he forgot to do was plant WMD in Iraq after the invasion so his lie would not be discovered.
Yeah, go with that argument. It makes a lot of sense.
No thats NOT my argument its your strawman VERSION of my argument. My argument isnt that BUSH KNEW there were no WMDs he might have believed it DESPITE the new intelligence the inspectors were bringing in. My argument which I have already stated at least five times is there is a difference between broad statements of belief. Like Iraq has WMDs, which are wrong. And telling specific and outright LIES. Like on Sept 7, 2002 when he cited an IAEA report and said it made the claim Iraq was six months from a nuclear weapon when in FACT that report said exactly the opposite that they had destoryed Iraqs nuclear capability in 91 and was not evidence it had been reconstituted or when he ran around the country telling everyone, including sending 12 reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges when our scientific experts on gc's had examined captured tubes and said UNANIMOUSLY that it was unlikely they would be used that way at ALL much less could only be used that way and ridiculed the very idea. THAT is the difference. Had Bush just said Iraq has WMDs I wouldnt be calling him a liar. Its not my fault your reading comprehension is so sad. This isnt that complicated a distinction.
kevin, the whole argument was settled in the three months before the war when the u.n. inspectors were in iraq and going to all the places that we said had weapons. they found none. bush forced the inspectors out because he was going to start the war in 48 hours. and then he lied for years after and said that we had to invade because saddam "wouldn't let the inspectors in".
Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq, argued in "The Threatening Storm" (2002) that inspections would be futile:
""This is the problem with the inspections: we knew the Iraqis were cheating but did not know where. If we had known, we would have bombed those facilities in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. The fact that out of ninety-seven targets struck only eleven were WMD production facilities should give a good sense of the problem." (p. 241)
Now, if inspectors didn't know where the facilities were in 1998, how would they know in 2003, five years after inspectors left Iraq? Also, 1998 was seven years after inspections began. If inspectors couldn't finish the job between 1991 and 1998, how long were they to conduct inspections after 2003? Another seven years?
how would they know? how about this by donald rumsfeld: "we know he has wmd because we know where they are".
What facilities? Ritter WHO WAS THERE, said all of the facilities HAD been destroyed. That is of course the equipment not necessarily the buildings.
http://www.zmag.org/content/Iraq/edwardscromwell_omissions.cfm
"When I left Iraq in 1998... the infrastructure and facilities had been 100% eliminated. There's no doubt about that. All of their instruments and facilities had been destroyed. The weapons design facility had been destroyed. The production equipment had been hunted down and destroyed. And we had in place means to monitor - both from vehicles and from the air - the gamma rays that accompany attempts to enrich uranium or plutonium. We never found anything." (Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, War On Iraq, Profile Books, 2002, p.26)
The French told us the same thing.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
The British intelligence source said the best Humint(human intelligence from agents) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there --
The only question is were they hiding some stockpiles of weapons. Not facilities. We now know they werent even doing that
"What facilities? Ritter WHO WAS THERE, said all of the facilities HAD been destroyed. That is of course the equipment not necessarily the buildings."
Richard Butler was also there as an inspector. He said Iraq had enough WMD to wipe Israel off the map. (BTW, unlike Ritter, Butler never tried to pick up an underaged girl.)
Well we now know Butler was WRONG and Ritter was RIGHT, and since he was never charged with anything we dont KNOW Ritter was trying to pick up any underaged girl.
More faith based intelligence. You KNOW what you want to believe and just look for evidence it MIGHT be true.
The evidence was never there to convince those whose job it is to know these things.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/28/politics/28INTE.html?ei=5007&en=d0585836a80541e0&ex=1398484800&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position
The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas. Foreign Islamic fighters have sought haven in Iraq since the American-led invasion and some Sunnis and Shiites have banded together against the occupiers, but the agencies say that is the result of anger and chaotic conditions, not proof of prewar alliances.
As for Hayes who kept trying to sell this long after its use by date, this is what the Defense dept said about his article case closed which was another of his forays into this
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=5785
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
More on Hayes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54452-2003Nov17?language=printer
W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of the DIA, said yesterday that the Standard article "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?"
Another former senior intelligence official said the memo is not an intelligence product but rather "data points . . . among the millions of holdings of the intelligence agencies, many of which are simply not thought likely to be true."
And to what OUR Senate and intelligence agencies say about the issue itself
http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
(discussing a CIA paper called interpreting a murky relationship Iraq and al Queda)
Former CIA director of intelligence said she asked the analysts to “lean far forward and do a speculative piece” and asked them “if you were to stretch to the maximum and the evidence you had what could you come up with”
(In responding to a Congressionally directed action report the Inspector General of the CIA reported as the Senate report put it in sum reported)
The data reveal few indications of an established relationship between al Qa’ida and Saddams regime before Sept 11, 2001.
)The DIA after review of relevant documents, including saying they didn’t believe they had missed any relevant documents said)
During an interview with committee staff the lead DIA analysts who follows the issue of possible connections between the Iraqi government and al Qa’ida noted that the DIA “continues to maintain that there was no partnership between the two organizations”
You KNOW what you want to believe and just look for evidence it MIGHT be true.
That is a painful and concise summary of the last six years of our national history.
"Finally, Perle claimed that Osama bin Laden's "network has been destroyed," even though U.S. intelligence officials' have reportedly said that bin Laden is rebuilding his network."
MMFA was dishonest here. Perle actually said, "Much of his network has been destroyed."
That is a true statement. If MMFA does not believe that, perhaps they can explain why there has not been an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil for nearly six years.
MMFA is guilty of doing what it accuses others of (i.e., distorting quotes).
Yes, that is such good logic. And there is no TB because I don't have TB. That is about the strength of your argument.
If there is no TB, or little incident of TB, after there had been much TB, something caused the occurence of TB to decrease.
We had a great deal of terrorism against Americans during the 1990s, e.g., Khobar Towers, two U.S. embassies (i.e., US soil) bombed, the USS Cole bombed, and 9/11 (which al Qaeda started planning for several years prior). Since 9/11, we have not been attacked on U.S. soil. I would say that, as Perle said, most of bin Laden's network has been destroyed. Do you have a better explanation?
I don't know. I really don't know. One could surmise that, having goaded George W. Bush into making this country hated worldwide, wrecking the U.S. military and destroying this nation's moral authority, it's pretty much Mission Accomplished for UBL.
I mean, not being a mind-reader, it's hard to know for sure. But I can't see how another attack in the West is in their interests. Keeping us in Iraq for as long as possible definitely is. It's easy for them to kill Americans while we're over there, and if we stay long enough, we may succeed in radicalising every last Muslim man, woman and child.
That $500,000 had to be the best money al-Qa'ida ever spent.
embassies hardly count as being attacked in this country. and of course we never should have had 9-11 to begin with, but your pal bush totally ignored the threat before 9-11. in fact he told bob woodward that before 9-11 that he knew who bin ladin was, but "i was not...there was a significant difference in my attitude after sept 11. i was not on point. but i knew he was a menace, and i knew he was a problem." quote "i was not on point" unquote
MEFIRST:
"embassies hardly count as being attacked in this country."
U.S. embassies are considered U.S. soil. The Americans killed in those bombing are just as dead as if they had been attacked in New York.
"and of course we never should have had 9-11 to begin with, but your pal bush totally ignored the threat before 9-11."
If you want to play the blame game, let's blame the Clinton administration for not catching the 9/11 pilots when they entered this country in 2000. The fact is there was nothing in the August 6 PDB that concerned a specific or imminent attack on this country. The information concerning possible hijackings was from an uncorroborated report from 1998. And, even at that, the report concerned possible hijackings to win the release of extremists in custody in the U.S., not turning planes into missiles.
The only true case I have seen concerning ignored threats was Madeleine Albright ignoring the U.S. ambassador of Kenya's pleas to beef up security at the embassy. According to Lawrence Wright in "The Looming Tower" (2006), after the embassy bombings, "The investigators were stunned to learn that nearly a year earlier an Eqyptian member f al-Qaeda had walked into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi and told the CIA about the bombing plot. The agency dismissed this intelligence as unreliable. This was not an isolated incident. All through the spring there had been a dromroll of threats and fatwas from bin Laden, but few had taken them seriously. Now the consequence of that neglect was starkly evident." (p. 275)
In this case we had bin Laden issuing threat and fatwas, an ambassador begging for help from Madeleine Albright, and even an al Qaeda member giving away the details of the bombing plot. Yet the Clinton administration ignored it all. The result: a total 257 people dead and 4,500 wounded.
There is absolutely no warning the Bush administration received about 9/11 that was as clear as this. If you can find something in the August 6 PDB that is as specific, please point to it. Many leftists argue that Richard Clarke tried to warn the Bush administration and that he was ignored. First, Clarke is less than credible. Second, the 9/11 Commission report noted the following on page 348: "Perhaps the most incisive of the advisors on terrorism to the new administration was the holdover Richard Clarke. Yet he admits that his policy advice, even if it had been accepted immediately and turned into action, would not have prevented 9/11."
you want the 9-11 commission? signed by 5 republicans? page 174: "president clinton was deeply concerned about bin ladin." they named chapter 8 of the report, about the summer of 2001, "the system was blinking red". page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. they did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute." bush held no meetings on counterterrorism before 9-11. clinton held them weekly, sometimes daily. headline of aug 6 pdb: "bin ladin determined to strike in u.s." page 260: "he [bush] did not recall discussing the august 6 report with the attorney general or whether rice had done so."
And what happened in London and Spain were what?
They were many things. However, they clearly were not attacks on U.S. soil.
No but they were clearly al Queda attacks and the other attacks you mentioned like the Cole isnt on US soil either. It took them 8 years between attacks IN the US proper LAST time. Its only been six. Ya got nothin. Your claim was al Queda was mostly destroyed. I would say London and Spain argue against that assertion.
Because reporting on the actions of Osama &Co. is not what mmfa is was or will be about. I have no doubt somwhere in the archives stupid statements on this subject are on file. Probably with a nice anaylsis of how the report is at varience with the doumented information of the time. If you come back with info that might cause harsh language, documentation of proof might be useful.
Hey Kevin. Let me sell you a snake charm amulet. The proof it is magic is I havent been bitten by a snake since I owned it.
Poor analogy. Were you bitten by snakes numerous times BEFORE you got the amulet?
Remember, Islamic terrorists hit us numerous times during the 1990s and planned 9/11 during the late 1990s. We have not been hit on U.S. soil since 9/11. Why is that the case? Al Qaeda's major attacks or attempted attacks took place in August 1998, December 1999/January 2000, October 2000, and, of course, September 2001. The longest gap there is just over a year. We've gone nearly six years since 9/11 without an attack on U.S. soil. I think Occam's Razor would suggest that is because, as Perle noted, bin Laden's network has been largely destroyed. If you have a better explanation (and, no, an amulet would not qualify), please share it.
So they have largely been destroyed since they havent attacked HERE and it means NOTHING that they HAVE attacked in London AND Spain? This makes sense how?
The State Department reported an increase in international terrorist attacks for 2004, nearly four times as many as there were in 2003.
In 2005, the number of international terrorist attacks
While we may not have another spectacular, large-scale attack like 9/11, we are now up against small groups of "amateur" terrorists who can still deal out serious damage and who are virtually invisible to law enforcement.
But go ahead and take the Decider-in-Chief's word that we're winning the war on terror. After all, he's been so trustworthy on everything else.
hoping to close the tag
When will blood-sucking warmongers like Perle be punished for their crimes against humanity? He and his ilk--Wolfowitz, Feith, Kagan, Kristol, Krauthammer, Chaney, Rumsfeld, et al.--need to be in the dock at The Hague so that the world can mete out justice. Is this possibility being pursued by any national government or NGO? As bad as a dictator like Pinochet was, these war criminals have far more blood on their hands and thus thoroughly warrant prosecution. They should consider themselves lucky that the ICC cannot impose the death penalty that they--in a cosmic sense--so richly deserve.
SOLON:
"As for Hayes who kept trying to sell this long after its use by date, this is what the Defense dept said about his article case closed which was another of his forays into this
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=5785"
Oops. A couple of problems. The press release you linked to does not mention Hayes or his article "Case Closed." And you have a date problem. The press release you linked to is dated 11/15/2003. Hayes' book came out seven months later and relied on much more than the Feith memo.
Lastly, why didn't you just link to MMFA's page on this topic since that is where you obviously got your information? Were you attempting to pass it off as your own research? Or do you believe MMFA is less than a credible source?
And don't make the mistake of assuming that anyone who realizes that there was a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam is a right winger. As MMFA noted in the above link, Christopher Hitchens saw the connection. Even the Christian Science Monitor reported on the connection shortly before the invasion.
No I DONT have any such problem. Since I remember it at the time and everyone KNEW and said it WAS about the Hayes article thats ARTICLE not his book which came later. I have to go look for links now, months AFTER I read these things in books and magazines like the Nation, and Progressive. So I start with google and follow links to their sources. That MAY have come from MMFA, I dont remember at this point. some of my links have but I have been following links to their source so I cant say for sure. If you would rather have it that way fine. I have followed many links to THEIR source. I dont really see the difference.
What is forgotten about this broadcast was that it was supremely boring! Not much about who Perle is and what influence if any, he really has. How he got rich? Etc. I interviewed him for a documentary that won the Polk Award and others in 1982 when assistant secy of Defense. A very unpleasant man, who wanted questions in advance, no editing of answers, etc. He finally agreed to do the interview without these preconditions... This so called documentary with "hoaky" interviews, set up with the anti war protester, lame meeting with Holbrooke in Almaty, was representative of most of this series.... Andrew A Stern,Prof Emeritus, Graduate School of Journalism, UCBerkeley, former ABC News and PBS producer....
One would think a professor of journalism could spell "hokey" correctly. Those who can't, teach.
Congratulations...
that was an egregiously priggish thing to say.
I'm wondering - what is your stake in this war? Are you that scared of the Arabs? Are you a private contractor?
With all of your references and links, one underlying fact stands alone - the war was unnecessary and probably just an oil grab and profit motive for Cheyney's corporate friends.
And by the way, it's not only Richard Perle and the lesser-high-profile powers behind the Iraq war whom the media is assisting in their reinvention and rehabilitation.
As I'm reading this and writing a response, I see that George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush are the guests on Larry King tonight, for the full hour, as they "make search for a cancer cure a personal fight because of the loss of a daughter to leukemia (half a century ago)."
Barbara Bush has never resembled Marie Antoinette more. Both of the Bushes are spouting cancer talking points, obviously from a script handed to them moment before air time. When they speak of "great efforts in the fight," it's not of anything that they've done, but others:
In case you hadn't heard, there is a big push on now in the media to portray cancer as not a big deal. "Survivable," when in fact while gains have been made on extending many cancer patients' lives, incidences of environmentally caused cancers are skyrocketing. You may live longer (if you have the resources to pay for the treatment), but you're still sick.Corporate America isn't about to stop polluting the environment with cancer-causing agents if they're not required to, so everyone will have to learn to live (or die) from it.
I noticed something I didn't understand about Media Matters a few minutes ago. It relates to this article in some weird way...
Bill O'Reilly called MM an assassination website in an interview on Irish television. I wanted to bring up my points about that article in the comments for it, but it's already archived (3/4 days later). Does everything get archived so quickly?
First I thought it was funny that O'Reilly claimed that there are a hundred "assassination" sites like this one, but knew instantly that it was this particular one. If there are really a hundred that do the same thing, how did he know it was this one? Either he had seen the article posted here about this topic before (which makes him playing "I don't remember" even more ridiculous), or he just made a really good guess when his odds of guessing the right side were at best 1 in 100.
In the same clip, he bemoaned the fact that in America, he can't sue MM (because they can say any lie they want and get away with it) and claimed that the US needs to reform that policy. I think he implied that in the UK, one can be sued for lying about a person (or entity perhaps) via a media outlet? I don't know the feasibility of such an attempt, but I'd advise (with no legal experience at all) that MM look into suing the Iriah media outlet that aired O'Reilly's deceptive and unmerited accusations.
How this relates to this article. That article did not condemn the Irish media outlet or the interviwer, as far as I recall. This article does condemn both the outlet and producer of Perle's "documentary." That is what I found perplexing. Not only should MM have called O'Reilly for his lies on Irish television, but that MM should also have called the Irish outlet, producers, and/or at least the interviewer for A) not debating it with O'Reilly or B) letting it be shown in the final cut that got aired.
As this article puts it: "But although Perle, who narrated the segment, speaks with people who are critical of his positions on the war, the program never corrected Perle's false assertions." I believe the program that ran O'Reilly's lies ("false assertions") about MM should have corrected those lies before being aired.
Back to work on my televisual-polygraph which flashes a warning on any screen when it detects onscreen false assertions. Hopefully it will be out in time for the 08 campaign ads. Thank you.
I am ashamed of crossroads, a usually excellent documentary series
Gee, did you think I ignore PBS fundraising appeals just because I'm cheap? If not for David Whatzisnamio and Bill Moyers, PBS could go off the air entirely and who would care? The only difference between the Newshour and network news and commentary is that the stories go on longer. Unfortunately, they are no less vapid for that, and the ideological range of opinion equally runs the gamut from A to B.
Corporate media is corporate media regardless of whether it's called "public" or not. Ostensibly, all the airwaves are public. Yeah, right!
Clinton believed that Iraq had WMDs. About everyone in the world who was not on Saddam's "Oil for food" scam believed he had them. He had used them in the past, and refused to account for their destruction at the time. The obvious conclusion is the one most reasonable people made. To say Bush and the neo-cons lied, while exempting Clinton et al, is pure politicization of the facts.
This rant about Perle is a good example of what the left sees as 'unfair' bias in the media - letting those who disagree with the 'party line' actually speak. The corollary to that idea is that anyone who believes anything contrary to the 'party line'is either 'duped' or is a liar.
No everyone in the world DIDNT believe it. I didnt, Scott Ritter didnt. The State depts intelligence arm wasnt so sure. France and Germany didnt
http://www.sundayherald.com/34271
The British intelligence source said the best Humint(human intelligence from agents) on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq. 'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there --
Thats just the current rightwing talking point ignoring all the debate about that very subject BEFORE we invaded. When are you guys going to stop trying to rewrite history?
Was'nt it McNeill's responsibility for "fairness and balance" to allow an hour to an advocate with an opposite point of view? Candidates that come to mind: Joe Wilson, General Odom, Chalmers Johnson or perhaps Bill Moyers. He did nothing of the kind. The series overall 2 hours 9-11pm, Sun-Fri. was to put it most kindly: very uneven with not a hint of logical continuity. The Sun. history of Ben Laden, etc blending in history of the Muslim Brotherhood was informative and generally well-done. The first hour Mon. about 2004-2005 US military action in Iraq was first rate by Frontline with reporter Martin Smith asking all the right questions to key players. This hour was bridged by a brief soundbite of McNeill unconvincingly explaining the infamous clip of Sec. of State Rice talking about the possibility of Iraq's WMD turning into a mushroom cloud...this turned out to be a lead-in into a irrelevant -to-digest hour about war poetry written by American soldiers from Vietnam and the current war. Here I lost interest and switched to C-Span. Perhaps overstated, but I wish McNeill and his bloodless News Hour sidekick Jim Lehrer would retire to their "home base" at the American Enterprise Institute or to any of the other too-numerous neocon think-less tanks!
As you may know, congress authorizes tax money to be spent on productions by The Corporation for Public Broadcast (CPB) which, in turn, enables the production of content shown on PBS. Following 9/11, congress authorized CPB to produce a series of shows under the title "America at the Crossroads". The intent was to explore in depth various issues dealing with the challenges to our nation thrust upon us by the attack of 9/11 and other related topics.Recently, over 400 documentary films were proposed to CPB by various documentaries and, after a long review process, these were winnowed to 20. One of these is a documentary titled "Islam versus Islamists - Voices from the Muslim Center". Along with the other nineteen documentaries which were approved, this production was given $675K of your tax money by CPB. The video was co-produced by Frank Gaffney who happens to be the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy.It was my good fortune to catch Frank on a call-in interview with radio host Paul W. Smith today.And now to the point! What I found most interesting and what I think is important is the following:The video explored sentiment in a large part of the Muslim community having to do with the feelings of this segment regarding what they consider to be the high-jacking of the Muslim faith and the Muslim community by Islamic radicals. Its no stretch, I believe, to say that anyone in the Muslim community speaking out against the radical immams and others of that ilk has to be extremely brave - much like anyone in the hood speaking out against the local gang members. Nevertheless, such brave souls do, apparently, exist and what they have to say is what the documentary is about.Here's the rub: PBS spiked it. Mr. Gaffney was on the air for about fifteen minutes today describing the exhausting and frustrating process which he and his crew had to go through attempting, at first, to meet the demands of PBS to use different background music, delete certain parts of interviews, etc. Finally, it was clear that the PBS staff in charge of this simply did not like subject matter of the documentary. Frank thinks the bottom line is that it showed the radicals in a less-then-favorable light which ran counter to what PBS preferred to show.In fact, he noted that, in addition to the twenty productions which were approved by CPB, a 21st documentary was shunted by the review process as a "sweetheart deal" to the producer of the series (Mc Neal, I think). Franks claims that this particular video was essentially an Islamo-fascist propaganda film!Your tax dollars at work...Frank has rented out a theater in the Rayburn office building in D.C. for a showing of ""Islam versus Islamists" at 6:30pm tomorrow night. He is in hopes of convincing members of congress that this documentary is important and truthful and, therefore, should be shown to the public by PBS as originally produced.The Capitol building operator is at 202-225-3121. I called in and was transferred to a California representative's office and spoke with one of his office people urging the rep to find the time to see this documentary. If you're interested in weighing in on this yourself, just ask for the office of your representative by either name, county, or what have you.In addition, if you can call PBS and register an urging that they reconsider the decision to shun this video: 202-879-9600Thanks for your help.Chuck
You forgot other groups who new the WMD claims were false and Perle knew of them.
1. Scott Ritter and other weapons inspectors.
2. British intelligence and the Downing Street Memo.
3. State Department officials on centrifuges.
4. Anyone who watched Colin Powell at the U.N.
Pearle must be living in some cold war alternative universe. He never admitted a single error in his pre-war assumptions. It was appalling to listen to him argue that the iraq war was justified and is winnable. What an amoral man. No one who actually has a conscience needs to expend so much effort to prove he has one.