Chris Bertram wonders why Robert Fisk can't report Colin Powell's speech without distorting it.
Posted by DeLong at February 06, 2003 06:54 AM | TrackbackJunius: ...a journalist in Fisk's position has a responsibility to meet reasonable standards of accuracy, especially when he's attacking to truth of someone else's claims and it doesn't do the anti-war case any good at all when that responsibility isn't discharged. Fisk writes the following:
And when General Powell started blathering on about "decades'' of contact between Saddam and al-Qa'ida, things went wrong for the Secretary of State. Al-Qa'ida only came into existence five years ago, since Bin Laden ? "decades" ago ? was working against the Russians for the CIA, whose present day director was sitting grave-faced behind General Powell.Surely, I thought, Powell wasn't stupid enough to assert that. Checking the full text of his speech on the BBC website I found that what he had actually said was:Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trains Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam uses the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada.In other words, Powell did not claim a decades long link with Al-Qaida but with terrorists such as Abu Nidal. Fisk similarly plays fast and loose with what Powell had to say about anthrax. Powell's point was that the anthrax attacks in the US had shown what a tiny amount of the stuff could do (not that much actually Colin!) and that Iraq has not tiny amounts but vast quantities. I can't find even a germ of conversational implication in Powell's speech that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks, but Fisk asserts that it is there. A poor article.
And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organisations and modern methods of murder.
Fisk may have bungled his article, but the deficiencies in Powell's speech were very serious. For example, the day before the speech, a British intelligence report was released debunking any link between Al Qaida and Iraq. The aluminum tube controversy rages on, but the sole piece of evidence that these were intended for nuclear reprocessing is that Saddam paid too much for them. The possibility that this was, in effect, a kickback to the manufacturer was not considered. The satellite photos were interesting, but anyone with a memory knows that the US claimed in 1991 that satellite photos showed Iraqi troops massed on the Saudi Arabian border; this was debunked by a Florida newspaper. In other words, US credibility is not very high. The claim about Al Qaida operating in Kurdish areas is suspect because these areas are, of course, outside of Iraqi control-- but well within the areas that the US has been bombing. The claim about gassing Kurds in Halabja has been cast in doubt by a former CIA analyst, Mr. Pelletiere, writing in the NY Times. Powell's veracity has been attacked for previous misstatements
Were Fisk's errors of interpretation more serious than Powell's errors of fact? Are the consequences of errors by Fisk more serious than those of errors by Powell?
Just asking.
I don't defend exaggeration or dishonesty wherever it comes from. But there are many examples of journalistic exaggeration/dishonesty from which to pick. Why Fisk? And-- more to the point-- why not Powell?
Posted by: Charles Utwater II on February 6, 2003 07:58 AMNever mind Fisk. President Bush and Tony Blair already know they have support for a war against Iraq from Julie Burchill in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,885771,00.html
Need anything more be said?
Posted by: Bob Briant on February 6, 2003 09:08 AMBefore asking "Why Fisk? And--more to the point--why not Powell?", you might want to glance through Chris Bertram's weblog for a little more context.
Bertram is no war enthusiast looking for another opportunity to pound Robert Fisk; in fact, in the very post in question, he says he is "unconvinced of the case for war." That's why his take on Fisk is arguably more interesting than the average warblogger's.
That's not to say that Bertram is necessarily right about Robert Fisk (or necessarily wrong), but I think he can be spared the charge of dealing out criticism in only one direction.
Posted by: Patrick Nielsen Hayden on February 6, 2003 09:19 AM"In other words, US credibility is not very high."
There's just no way of pleasing some people. Oh well, they are already being marginalized. Bob Bryant is right on target in mentioning Julie Burchill. Charles Utwater II and his ilk, though, still have Oliver Stone and Gore Vidal on their side. They might be able to hold their next rally in a phone booth.
I am going on record predicting that Saddam Hussein will agree to go into exile. Let’s hope that I’m right. If not, we will soon invade Iraq. The tyrant of Baghdad will not be in power regardless by the end of March.
Posted by: David Thomson on February 6, 2003 09:41 AMThings are going from bad to worse for Charles Utwater II and his buddies. I just found the following on Instapundit:
"I'm Persuaded
By Mary McGrory
Thursday, February 6, 2003; Page A37
I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's "J'accuse" speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32573-2003Feb5.html
Posted by: David Thomson on February 6, 2003 10:10 AMIs this first time in history that anti-war hysteria has exceeded pro-war hysteria? Burchill is right: the anti-war movement is long on self-righteous condemnation, and short on practical solutions. "Do-nothingism" let the bodies pile up during the Bosnian conflict. If Clinton hadn't eventually authorised airstrikes, the whole sorry mess would be still grinding on today.
Posted by: Daniel Barnes on February 6, 2003 12:18 PM"If Clinton hadn't eventually authorised airstrikes, the whole sorry mess would be still grinding on today."
I supported Bill Clinton's actions in the Balkans. The fact that he was a Democrat mattered not a whit to me. Let's getting straight here and now: much of the screaming going on is due almost solely to the fact that George W. Bush resides in the White House! We are often witnessing partisan politics at its worst.
Posted by: David Thomson on February 6, 2003 12:27 PMNo "anti-war" hysteria here.
Just a coupla questions.
What's Bush's plan if the various factions that make up Iraq start pounding on each other? Turks attack Kurds, Shiites start making overtures to Iran, and so on.
If Iraq is such a threat, what about Pakistan? They already have the bomb, and they apparently did some nifty tech transfer to North Korea.
Posted by: Stephen J Fromm on February 6, 2003 12:36 PMThe screaming has to do with the fact that this is a "war" entirely manufactured from whole cloth. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Queda in general. Bush can't handle that problem, or N. Korea, so Karl Rove just came up with something else. Bush is incompetent and a threat to the world, and that's something to really scream about.
Now, as far as the Fisk article- remember that this administration of creeps ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE that they were going to throw up a lot of smoke and you were supposed to visualize a gun. Fair enough, but forewarned is forearmed.
So Fisk implies that Powell said that Al-Queeda goes back decades. Why did Fisk get that impression? Well, consider that no-one has any proof, or even suspicions, that any of Iraq's terrorism funding* has ever been directed at the US or even the non-Israeli west, and certainly not when we were Saddam's best buddies. So why did Powell come up with the "go back decades" crap? What relevance did it have?
Maybe because he wanted the sheeple to form that "smoke" into a feeling that "Saddam supported Islamic fundamentalists, the antecedents of Al-Queda, for decades." I mean, so many of them already think that Iraqis were on the 9/11 planes, why not go for it?
And if you don't suspect that then may I sugguest that you take a few classes in rhetoric?
Also, howcome after all the worry about VX and Sarin and god knows what else, Powell little visual prop just happens to be ANTHRAX??? Duh-- more leading of the sheeple by the nose.
WTF is the anthrax killer anyway, speaking of incompetence?
I blame the liberals for coddling students and letting our school systems deteriorate to the point where hardly anybody in this country anymore is capable of critical thought (or to even know when they're getting zoomed) Seriously. Happy, Mr. Thomson?
*Anybody else think that our support of Savimbi, the contras, and others doesn't look a whole lot better than Hussein's support of the Palestinians?
Posted by: a different chris on February 6, 2003 12:55 PMI agree with Chris about the first error, though I imagine it was an error rather than deliberate. But if one's going to make a point of something one should check your facts.
But I agree with Fisk on the second, Colin Powell was making a speech about Iraq and as I heard it it seemed he was trying to link Iraq to the Anthrax attacks. Remember the American people seem very gullible -- I saw one opinion poll showing that something like 70% think all the Sep 11 hijackers came from Iraq.
Also, Charles is right in his last paragraph. Powell is basically lying about AQ links to Saddam. He is not alone in this -- Tony Blair said there were links the same day a leaked intelligence report showed there were none.
Posted by: Matthew on February 6, 2003 01:05 PMPlease don't confuse Fisk with the facts...
Posted by: Sisyphus on February 6, 2003 01:07 PMWhoops..sorry. No-one's going to get the joke if I don't include the link about the hijackers http://www.theassassinatedpress.com/adiodi3.htm
Posted by: Matthew on February 6, 2003 01:26 PM"If Iraq is such a threat, what about Pakistan? They already have the bomb, and they apparently did some nifty tech transfer to North Korea."
That's right. However, we must respond to each and every challenge in an appropriate manner. What might work with Saddam Hussein is not feasible regarding Pakistan and North Korea. Lastly, do we really wish for the Iraqis to have the opportunity to become another North Korea? Isn't one enough?
Posted by: David Thomson on February 6, 2003 01:44 PMd chris:"consider that no-one has any proof, or even suspicions, that any of Iraq's terrorism funding* has ever been directed at the US or even the non-Israeli west"
-- "proof"? you're asking for stone, cold proof, which is very difficult to come by in these situations? And you rule out "suspicions"? Are we supposed to take this sentence seriously? Oh, don't worry, bring up an event from 25 years ago to distract us from what you just said. You forget Pinochet...
matthew: "a leaked intelligence report showed there were none"
"showed" -- how do you conclusively disprove something like that?
Powell isn't the only one who's rhetoric needs to be closely examined. I also think it's significant that only a portion of Powell's evidence is being "discredited" here. What about the tapes and photographs of facilities? Some people just can't get past their ideology.
Posted by: JT on February 6, 2003 01:46 PMIf every point that Powell made were valid, it still does not rise to the point of preemptive invasion, regardless that it evidences a "material breach" of 1441. The evidence presented is overwhelmingly contradicted by the fact that, perhaps because of containment, Saddam has not posed a threat to US interests since 1993; and further, with continued containment, will never pose a threat to US interests.
Moreover, greater effort has been put into providing evidence of Saddam's access to WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda than was put into finding Clinton's black love child; and these flimsy assertions are the best they come up with! The effort to results ratio here is skewed to a point where the presumtption must lie with those, like Fiske, who react to the deception in Powell's rhtoric.
Posted by: TonyB on February 6, 2003 04:16 PM"If every point that Powell made were valid, it still does not rise to the point of preemptive invasion, regardless that it evidences a "material breach" of 1441."
Gosh darn it, I can see it now:
"If every point that Powell made about Saddam's imminent plans to attack Washington, DC, were valid, it still does not rise to the point of preemptive invasion regardless that it evidences a 'material breach' of 1441. I still wish to wait until the nation's capitol is blown to smithereens. Why the rush to war? After all, what’s a little anthrax between friends? Even if the Iraqi dictator murdered 20 million Americans--we would still have 270 million people left in the United States."
Posted by: David Thomson on February 6, 2003 04:40 PMPatrick Nielsen says: "Before asking "Why Fisk? And--more to the point--why not Powell?", you might want to glance through Chris Bertram's weblog for a little more context.... say that Bertram is necessarily right about Robert Fisk (or necessarily wrong), but I think he can be spared the charge of dealing out criticism in only one direction."
I should have been clearer. I don't criticize Bertram. But Fisk has the political weight of a gnat. Powell has vastly more influence-- and should be proportionately more careful with his accusations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr. Thomson, if that's the best you can do, I shall have to file a complaint to the Republican National Committee. This is a high-class site, and we deserve a far better class of troll. Have you no pride, man?
Well JT, I presume you can't show me that George Bush has no links with Al Qaida. I don't think he does though.
Posted by: Matthew on February 7, 2003 06:17 AMMatthew: exactly my point. Thanks.
Posted by: JT on February 7, 2003 08:05 AMWell Ok I should have put 'the best evidence is that there is none'. The point being JT, that in the absence of a link we assume there is none. The best attempt by the British and American governments have come up with no evidence of a link, therefore there probably isn't one.
Tony Blair managed to come up with one link, that there might be Al Qaida operatives in Iraq. But it was pointed out immediatly that there were loads of Al Qiaida operatives in central London, so that didn't really say much.
Posted by: Matthew on February 7, 2003 09:39 AMI'm actually surprised that Powell didn't himself veto the speech as being too flimsy. Does he expect the world to accept Hussein's links to Al-Qaeda just on the Bush administration's say so?
The only thing that the speech shows strong evidence for is that Saddam Hussein still has nerve agents, which most everyone already knew he had and was storing up for the day the U.S. might attack him. And I seriously doubt the U.S. wishes to send him into exile so U.S. troops had better be prepared for such chimical weapons.
Posted by: andres on February 7, 2003 12:11 PMTony Blair managed to come up with one link, that there might be Al Qaida operatives in Iraq.
Cool Story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2735031.stm
Iraq dossier 'solid' - Downing Street
A dossier of evidence against Iraq is "solid", Downing Street has insisted after allegations that it included plagiarised material that was 12 years out of date.
The UK intelligence document released on Monday was designed to help win over sceptics by detailing Saddam Hussein's efforts to hide weapons of mass destruction.
But it emerged that some of the document was copied from three different articles, including one written by a postgraduate student.
...
The UK document received praise from US Secretary of State Colin Powell this week as he outlined his country's case against Iraq.
...
Ibrahim al-Marashi, Californian author
"I have to say I'm flattered"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/audio/38790000/rm/_38790001_dossier00_marashi.ram
Posted by: Old European on February 7, 2003 12:19 PMPowell did a magnificent rhetorical job without adding any substantive new reasons to enforce the UN mandate by invading Iraq. Unfortunately, I suspect that his personal credibility has suffered even as he had to play the incredibly bad hand he had been dealt as well as he could.
It seems to me the issue has never been whether Saddam is a bad guy or cheating. From one who is in favor of trying to make the UN more effective as the only UN we have rather than continually dumping on it (indeed the same can be said for our own federal government), I am in favor of enforcing UN mandates.
The problem (David) is not that GWB is a Republican. The problem is that many of us think he has had his priorities wrong and handled the rhetoric and diplomacy in a ham handed way that seems almost designed to demonstrate that the US is lead by arrogant ideologues who cannot be trusted. In part this lack of trust has been caused by the misrepresentation of so many issues and facts, including the nearness and magnitude of any threat by Iraq or the ability to contain that threat sufficiently by a variety of measures short of war while we deal with other, more urgent priorities.
With all this said, once we have put ourselves and the UN in the position we are in now, unless Saddam does a complete about face (which seems quite unlikely) we we have little choice but to embark on the high risk and high cost mission of waging war and dealing effectively with the aftermath. We must do this with UN backing (for which Powell's show was necessary) not because it is the only way to sufficiently contain Saddam but because now that we have escalated the Iraq problem to galactic proportions, the credibility of the only international body designed to help make our small planet a safer and more humane place to live (as well as our own) would be be seriously undermined at a time when we face more dangerous (and difficult) problems.
"With all this said, once we have put ourselves and the UN in the position we are in now"
The Germans and the French do not speak for all of the UN! America now has the support of most democracies. Who gives a fat damn how the "Old Europeans" and a few dictatorships view the United States? This is of little importance.
"..it is the only way to sufficiently contain Saddam but because now that we have escalated the Iraq problem to galactic proportions"
Nope, the blame for this mess is directed solely towards Saddam Hussein. We are only going to clean it up.
Posted by: David Thomson on February 9, 2003 04:14 AM