CLARKE VS. CONDI, 2004

KERRY VS. O’NEIL, 1971

9/11 QUESTIONS REMAIN

Everyone keeps asking about the war on terror, but I saw no TV reports yesterday on the failure of the war on AIDS. The New York Times did, to its credit, lead with a report showing that 90 percent of the people who need antiretroviral AIDS drugs are NOT getting them:

“Three years after the United Nations declared a worldwide offensive against AIDS and 14 months after President Bush promised $15 billion for AIDS treatment in poor countries, shortages of money and battles over patents have kept antiretroviral drugs from reaching more than 90 percent of the poor people who need them.”

I saw no TV pick-up on this important story, no interviews on the Sunday Shows, no prime time specials. No surprise.

Says Stephen Lewis, the UN envoy for AIDS in Africa, about the special fund to which much has been pledged and little received: “There are no excuses left, no rationalizations to hide behind, no murky slanders to justify indifference — there will only be the mass graves of the betrayed.” President Bush promised $15 billion 14 months ago…

Good morning?.

BLOOD ON THE WATER

The press is never more aggressive than when it smells blood in the water. It was like that in the days when Bill Clinton’s having been interrupted in flagrante delicto was all the buzz. In the sexless Washington of the Bush dynasty, we have to settle for the Dick and Condi show. Back and forth they went yesterday, from “Meet the Press” to “60 Minutes,” as charge and countercharge clouded the airwaves. Every network gave us a taste of this version of some said/she said.

The Family Steering Committee of 9/11 Families is demanding that Condoleeza come clean:

“The Family Steering Committee demands the appearance of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice under oath in a public hearing immediately. We believe that testifying before the Commission in a public forum is Ms. Rice’s moral obligation given her responsibility as National Security Advisor to protect our nation. The death of nearly 3000 innocent people warrants such a moral precedent.”

WHAT WILL BE COMPROMISED?

Condi is looking for a way to get back before the Commission. The Washington Post calls it a “compromise.” The White House seems to realize they made a big mistake by keeping her out of the fray. She says she has “nothing to hide,” reminding me of Nixon’s famous “there can be no whitewash at the White House.” Once the top dogs start getting defensive, you know panic has set in. Former terror chief Clarke is surviving the administration’s attack dogs, who have accused him of lying, profiteering and everything but child-molestation and treason.

SHUTTING HIM UP: “NOT EASY”

Andrew Gumbel of the Independent in London points out that the Administration has scored some points but not enough to seal Clarke’s ship-sinking loose lips:

“Shutting him up, though, is not proving easy. None of the usual attack-dog techniques - character assassination, intimidation and reciprocal mud-slinging - has entirely worked on Mr Clarke, though it has not been for want of trying. His testimony before the committee investigating the 11 September attacks last week not only shook received wisdom about the Bush administration’s `war on terror,’ it also upstaged every other contribution so far through the simple act of Mr. Clarke’s apologizing to relatives of the victims for letting them down.”

Clarke is giving as good as he gets, though this is beginning to feel like a blood sport with each thrust and parry making “who is telling the truth?” the issue, not whether the administration was or was not negligent, as many suspect, in the 9/11 disaster.”

WHAT HE SAYS

Kevin Drum writes about THE Book:

“?let’s try to sort out what Clarke actually says and why he says it anyway, because I don’t think it’s entirely obvious just from the snippets we’ve seen on TV over the past week. The story is a little more complicated than it appears.

To begin with, the bulk of the book is a fairly straightforward description of terrorism during the 90s: what happened, how we responded, how we eventually put the al-Qaeda pieces together, and what kinds of institutional problems prevented a more effective response. It is largely concerned with Clarke’s efforts to get official Washington to take terrorism seriously — he is scathing toward the FBI and the military, and only slightly less so toward the CIA — and there’s not much question that during this period Clarke was fundamentally nonpartisan, mostly just a bulldog who was obsessed with terrorism and frequently upset that the rest of the world didn’t share his obsession.”

TERRORISM: NOT HER PRIORITY

As Condi blasts Richard Clarke for saying something different today than he told her in the White House, , Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo goes back to a definitive Foreign Affairs article she wrote back in 2000 that downplays the threat of terrorism:

“Not only does she not mention al Qaida or Osama bin Laden, she scarcely even mentions terrorism in the sense we now generally understand it. Her discussion is about North Korea, Iraq and Iran — rogue states that might threaten the US with weapons of mass destruction (primarily with the use of missiles) — and, to a much lesser extent, state-sponsored terrorism from Iran.

Meanwhile, the AP reports that “Rule Against Intelligence Sharing Is Hurting War on Terrorism”:

“More than two years after the Bush administration won pledges of support from dozens of countries eager to join the war on terrorism, Washington and its allies still keep a jealous hold on intelligence - snarling the information sharing needed to shut down al-Qaida.

With public attention focused this week on the failures leading to the Sept. 11 attacks, officials acknowledged that information-sharing is a problem that will be difficult to change despite a new resolve on both sides of the Atlantic after the deadly bombings this month in Spain.”

CONSPIRACY CONVENTION OUT WEST.

While the official inquiry continues in Washingtion, an unofficial gathering assembled in San Francisco, The Chronicle reported Saturday:

“Conspiracy theorists, anti-war activists and those with healthy doses of skepticism about the official version of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks converged in San Francisco on Friday for a three-day conference to try to figure out what really happened in the worst act of terrorism on American soil.

The gathering includes a hodgepodge of writers, filmmakers, and activists peddling their own version of what they claim was a cover-up by the Bush administration. In essence, they believe the administration knew about the attacks ahead of time but failed to act so that they could go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq?

“At this weekend’s event at Herbst Theatre, skeptics of the official version of the terrorist attacks — that the Bush administration didn’t have any advance warning and couldn’t have prevented the attacks — are hashing out what they believe happened and who was responsible?

“‘There is a 9/11 truth movement,’ said Nicholas Levis, another event organizer, as he addressed reporters while standing in front of a sign that read `Stop the 9/11 Cover-Up.’ Accusing the Bush administration of `stonewalling,’ he echoed the sentiments of other speakers that the White House had known ahead of time of the terrorist attacks, using it as an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?.”

LATEST “BOMBSHELL”

Salon reports:

“A former FBI wiretap translator with top-secret security clearance, who has been called “very credible” by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has told Salon she recently testified to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States that the FBI had detailed information prior to Sept. 11, 2001, that a terrorist attack involving airplanes was being plotted.

“Referring to the Homeland Security Department’s color-coded warnings instituted in the wake of 9/11, the former translator, Sibel Edmonds, told Salon, `We should have had orange or red-type of alert in June or July of 2001. There was that much information available.’ Edmonds is offended by the Bush White House claim that it lacked foreknowledge of the kind of attacks made by al-Qaida on 9/11. `Especially after reading National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice [Washington Post Op-Ed on March 22] where she said, we had no specific information whatsoever of domestic threat or that they might use airplanes. That’s an outrageous lie. And documents can prove it’s a lie.’”

KERRY DEBATES, CIRCA l971

While this pseudo Condi-Clarke “debate” was on all the networks, CSPAN dredged up another and far more revealing debate that aired on the Dick Cavett Show in 1971. It was a debate on Vietnam between a hard-line right-wing Vietnam Veteran named John O’Neil and John Kerry, then with Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry in those years projected a charisma and honesty that he could use today as he easily danced around his critic. This old tape showed how the tactics we are seeing today in the attempt to discredit Clarke were used back then with a vengeance too.

Kerry, by the way, indicted war crimes in Vietnam, an issue on which he is being taken to task today. He did with a personal passion of a kind that might be deployed against similar atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Free Speech Radio News has been carrying terrific reports of how Iraq prisoners and families are being abused by US troops.)

CARTER BASHES NADER

Bill Clinton was in good form last week at the Democrats unity dinner in DC, but I missed Jimmy Carter’s blast at Ralph Nader. Lloyd Hart wrote about it.

“On Thursday night this week former president Jimmy Carter destroyed all and any credibility he had as an election observer by blaming Ralph Nader for former Vice President Al Gore’s loss in his presidential bid in election 2000. The former president was also insulting toward presidential candidate Ralph Nader by telling him to `go back to umpiring softball games or examining the rear end of automobiles, and don’t risk costing the Democrats the White House this year….’”

AROUND THE WORLD

CNN is reporting: “Israel’s chief prosecutor on Sunday officially recommended indicting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for allegedly taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes when he was Foreign Minister?” The BBC was focusing on a big victory for the French left in their elections this weekend dealing a blow to French President Chirac. The economy was one of the big issues

LOCAL TV NEWS: IS IT HEALTHY?

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports:

“Local TV news coverage of health and medical stories is ailing, according to a new University of Minnesota study. Among the “troublesome trends”: stories that are too short, too sensationalized, use only one source and are reported by journalists who don’t regularly cover the topic.

Assistant professor of journalism Gary Schwitzer reviewed 840 health and medical news stories aired from February to May 2003 on the four largest Twin Cities stations. None of the stations received high marks.

“Such a study `is important when you consider that most Americans in most surveys get most of their health care info from TV, yet television rates as one of the least trusted sources of health information,’ said Schwitzer, who once headed CNN’s medical news unit. `I wanted to get hard data and hold up a mirror to show news decisionmakers what in fact they are doing.’”

Professor Schwitzer’s study is here

The All America “liberal” radio network is launching. Al Franken was interviewed by ABC News and says he wants to provide information while conservative radio only offers “ammunition.” Why will it succeed? Says Al: “THEY LOVE ME.” Mark Walsh, who is running the network, says he wants to “build a profitable business.” ABC notes that the station is only in four markets, Rush Limbaugh is on 600 stations.

YOUR LETTERS STREAM IN

Jon R. Koppenhoefer has a thoughtful letter from Springfield, Ohio

“I am conflicted about the recent case in which the Pentagon was found to have no obligation to permit journalists to ‘cover war.’ Our Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war, and the Executive branch the power to conduct war, but the 1st Amendment gives the press the right to report on the activities of government.

The free press has demonstrated its respect for, and understanding of, the 1st Amendment in various ways. At a minimum, that variance of interpretation and observation gives rise to cries of media bias from both ends of the domestic political spectrum.

In extreme cases — the Spanish-American War comes to mind, but historians can cite many more instances, I’m sure — the press becomes the handmaiden of government, cheering for a particular political goal and suppressing or even lying about all other viewpoints.

Manufacturing Consent was an eye-opener for me. It seems like the right book for the mass-media era of American history. It certainly is relevant now, as is Rutherford’s new book cited by Zerbisias in her column.

The idea of embedding journalists in order to control how they report and what they report on is a modern refinement of an old habit. Governments have sought to control the press since the invention of movable type, I suppose.

“But the court case you mention seems to be of curious import. If the Pentagon wants to influence the way in which its conduct is reported, it will have to accommodate the desires of the press for independence in access and reporting.

I don’t think the court case has much impact on the relationship of the press and the Pentagon. Granting or withholding access to ‘control the story’ has been a common feature of celebrity journalism, where ‘the get’ is more important than a objective, critical interview with a political figure. (Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer come to mind.)

We both know that if you want to stock your talk show with big names, you can’t hurt their feelings by asking questions they don’t want to answer. If you do, they just won’t come back. But then they lose access to the audience you can provide through your media channel?”

FROM PAKISTAN: BE FAIR

Wajahat Ali writes from Karachi

“You mentioned an email by Dom X Mohammed in yesterday’s blog that shouldbe answered. Firstly, I don’t see what his views have to do with the media, unless being a book critic falls in that category. Secondly and more importantly, he says, `Pakistan is one of the most repressive of the US-backed repressive regimes on earth.’ Actually, it’s not. As a Pakistani, living in Pakistan, I am closer to what he is talking about. It’s just so easy for Americans to believe that its taken for granted … a country in that `bad’ part of the world, military dictator in charge, not democratic, must be very repressive.

You are part of the media, Danny, and your weblog probably reaches as many people as any city newspaper would (I’m guessing more), so when you pass on comments from your readers, you should realize you are passing on views that you have not fact checked, and in this case, you are perpetuating an image that is easily accepted but not entirely accurate.”

FROM COASTS EAST AND WEST

Lynne Glasner writes from New York

“I wanted to note that the UN veto by the US re: Israel assassination was reported on BBC news as part of their daily broadcast (I think it was yesterday). I haven’t, however, seen any other word about the Al Jezeera allegations of the 14-year-old suicide bomber being a fabrication. Has there been any investigation into this? Has it been reported elsewhere? I can’t imagine the US press reporting it unless they have at least 3 sure eyewitnesses. Now that I think of it, though, the timing is sort of suspect.”

Teddi Curtis lives in Corona, CA:

“I’m really worried about the computerized voting machines we are going to be using in November. Greg Palast is working on this problem, so it must be real. I’ve read of a couple of very disturbing situations created by the video arcade method of electing our leaders: A Sacramento lawyer who couldn’t vote for senator because that page was missing from the computer! anyone using that computer could not vote for senator!! 6,000 voters in one Flori-dah precinct voted for no one!!! The CEO of Diebold (maker of machines) has sworn to do everything he could to make sure Bush is (re)elected. Even more damning than that is his statement that his machines cannot produce a paper trail even though the same company makes ATMs. Anyone ever leave an ATM without a receipt?

My son suggested that we all vote `absentee’ so that there will be a paper trail of our choices. I think it’s a brilliant stroke of genius (well, he is my son). How can we get the word out to enough people?

THE ANATOMY OF MEDIA POWER

Shebar Windstone has been reading about the new edition of Anthony Sampson’s Anatomy of Britain, which argues that media has grown in importance over the last forty years while formal institutions have shrunk. She writes:

“ Here’s an excerpt from the excerpt — I am wondering if this might also be true in the U.S. — funny, I never thought of it in these terms before:

Today the circles of Britain’s power centers look very different from the pattern of 40 years ago. The palace, the universities and the diplomats have drifted towards the edge. Many institutions — including Parliament, the Cabinet, trade unions and industry — look smaller. The Prime Minister, the Treasury and Ministry of Defense loom larger at the centre. The bankers are more dominant while the nationalized industries have almost disappeared as separate entities. The media are more pervasive, seeping everywhere into the vacuum left by the shrinking of the old powers.”

Have a great week. Keep your letters coming and share this blog with your friends. That’s the best marketing tool I have. Write: dissector@mediachannel.org