Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The News We Kept to Ourselves
ATLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.
For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk.
Working for a foreign news organization provided Iraqi citizens no protection. The secret police terrorized Iraqis working for international press services who were courageous enough to try to provide accurate reporting. Some vanished, never to be heard from again. Others disappeared and then surfaced later with whispered tales of being hauled off and tortured in unimaginable ways. Obviously, other news organizations were in the same bind we were when it came to reporting on their own workers.
We also had to worry that our reporting might endanger Iraqis not on our payroll. I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting. After all, secret police thugs brutalized even senior officials of the Information Ministry, just to keep them in line (one such official has long been missing all his fingernails).
Still, I felt I had a moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day. King Hussein dismissed the threat as a madman's rant. A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.
I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.
Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.
Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.
I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.
Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
For more information:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page....
"Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home. "
This sounds like the incubator babies. Let us have a genuine autopsy report please. And how would have reporting this have jepardized the life of Iraqis? Bogus billshit.
This sounds like the incubator babies. Let us have a genuine autopsy report please. And how would have reporting this have jepardized the life of Iraqis? Bogus billshit.
Am I suppose to just believe this am I?
This man is disgusting. He lifts rationalizing to new heights. To tell the truth or not to tell the truth, that is the question. Is it nobler in the mind to tell the truth and save some lives, or to refrain, thus costing more lives over time. Oh, and silly me. I thought it was a journalists duty to report the truth. But not when it interferes with the bottom line apparently. After all CNN might have lost some its position in Iraqi, thus losing its position in the ratings… Oh, wait. It did anyway.
Of what use is it for a “news” organization to maintain a presence in a country if it won't report the news it finds there? Oh, wait. It lets them get scoops, ratings, and, thereby, money. How foolish of me to entertain the thought that their job might be to report the news.
Yet they won't wear flag lapel pins or use the term “we” to refer to freedom-fighting American troops, because that might cast doubt upon their precious “objectivity.” How absolutely vile. This is the lowest. CNN spent millions on the production of an anti American anti military piece of fiction about nerve gas in Vietnam. But will not tell the truth in Iraq because it fears retribution.
Well dude, the retribution is here. CNN like the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp are going down the tubes. I won't watch them again. ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
This is really the journalistic equivalent of corporate greed. Who is worse: ENRON's Andy Fastow, or CNN's Jordan? I'm sure every crooked corporate titan can justify in their own minds their skullduggery, but they are just grubby businessman. They are not as noble as a 'journalist'.
When it comes down to it, why are we more afraid and concerned about WMD than the leadership of an entire nation? Can't the leadership do worse damage with more far-reaching consequences than a WMD ever could?
The things this man claims to know may have changed the course of history years ago - saving many destroyed families, lives, etc. Sticky situation with an easy solution - stand tall, stand righteous, be strong and do what's right, even if it's not popular or could be done cheaper...
This is very sad. This is indeed, nothing but some pre-emptive CYA by CNN. Too late. If CNN had any integrity, it would have removed it's entire staff in Baghdad when it became aware of such atrocities, fully broadcast the details of those atrocities, and it might have retained a shred of credibility.
It now is confirmed that CNN is not a news organization, it is a pack of pandering leftists who put profits first, and truth last. Funny, isn't that how they always slam those 'evil capitalists' they seem to deplore? Coward! This from an organization that will breathlessly report on anything about the Bush Administration that they perceive (insinuate) to have a hint of scandal: Cheney and the energy plan, Lott's comments, the Bush girls, ties to Enron, yet they cannot tell the truth about a murderous regime.
SAY IT! The only place a reporter can report (or manufacture a lie and report it) without fear is in the US, a country these bums work to tear down with every broadcast. PATHETIC! I'm sure CNN has the same side deal going with the Palestinian authority. This explains so much.
For over a decade CNN has knowingly hidden the truth about Saddam for years. People have been tortured and killed because CNN hid the truth in order to keep an office open in Iraq. But why? They weren’t reporting the truth! Read this news executive’s excuses. His hypocrisy is disgusting.
Why not pull their reporters out of Iraq and tell the truth about Saddam a year ago? They knew then that the truth would have supported George Bush’s policy on Iraq. Knowing what they did about the monster in Baghdad, why did CNN continue their ‘neutral’ editorial stand on going to war against what they knew was a regime of terror? Greed or cowardice?
For the sake of their business (which was knowingly reporting half truths and lies) they have been silent handmaidens to Saddam Hussein. They remained silent when the truth would have saved innocent lives. CNN is an accomplice to Saddam’s murders.
So he warned the King of Jordan.... why not the 2 brother-in-laws? They're dead. This really was disgusting. Out of his own mouth he condemns himself and it's written on paper! I guess confession is good for the soul, but how can he live with himself, knowing what he knew and staying silent. He should have been sitting next to Sec. Powell at the UN...adding his information to World!
And these are the guys who'd like the world to think the USA went to Iraq for the oil? Interesting how "businesses" if they support socialism and Democrats (think Hughes, Apple etc) get a free ride in the media (even when they ARE the media) but businesses who might not support Dems are excoriated (think Haliburton, MicroSoft).
Eason Jordan states that Uday Hussein told him that he was going to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and his two brothers-in-law who had defected. Jordan says he "felt a moral obligation" to tell King Hussein about the threat. That's all fine and good, but didn't he have the same "moral obligation" to warn Uday's brothers-in-law??? If not personally, at least through US intelligence channels?
Well, he didn't. The brothers-in-law were lured back to Iraq under promises of their well-being - and then executed. CNN has blood on its hands, and I bet this is only the tip of the iceberg. When you know evil exists and you allow it to continue, you are just as responsible as those committing the evil. CNN does the exact SAME THING in Cuba, ever since it arrived there after securing permission to "broadcast" (CNN term for exporting propaganda). The network has a permanent female career correspondent there who, to date, has never uttered a negative word about the government. These people are media high-grade cyanide.
One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved if the press had told the truth about the torture in Iraq. What really angers me is how so many of these news outlets pretended there was no or little basis to the torture stories. Now, all of a sudden, they tell the truth. Perhaps if they had closed their bureaus and gone public with the atrocities hundreds if not thousands might have been saved. A pox on all their houses.
So who is responsible for the deaths of more people? ENRON, Global Crossing, Exxon, the timber industry, Newt Gingrich, and all the other whipping boys of the left ADDED TOGETHER, or CNN? Pull the plug on CNN... they are DONE!
Of what use is it for a “news” organization to maintain a presence in a country if it won't report the news it finds there? Oh, wait. It lets them get scoops, ratings, and, thereby, money. How foolish of me to entertain the thought that their job might be to report the news.
Yet they won't wear flag lapel pins or use the term “we” to refer to freedom-fighting American troops, because that might cast doubt upon their precious “objectivity.” How absolutely vile. This is the lowest. CNN spent millions on the production of an anti American anti military piece of fiction about nerve gas in Vietnam. But will not tell the truth in Iraq because it fears retribution.
Well dude, the retribution is here. CNN like the Baghdad Broadcasting Corp are going down the tubes. I won't watch them again. ''The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'' Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
This is really the journalistic equivalent of corporate greed. Who is worse: ENRON's Andy Fastow, or CNN's Jordan? I'm sure every crooked corporate titan can justify in their own minds their skullduggery, but they are just grubby businessman. They are not as noble as a 'journalist'.
When it comes down to it, why are we more afraid and concerned about WMD than the leadership of an entire nation? Can't the leadership do worse damage with more far-reaching consequences than a WMD ever could?
The things this man claims to know may have changed the course of history years ago - saving many destroyed families, lives, etc. Sticky situation with an easy solution - stand tall, stand righteous, be strong and do what's right, even if it's not popular or could be done cheaper...
This is very sad. This is indeed, nothing but some pre-emptive CYA by CNN. Too late. If CNN had any integrity, it would have removed it's entire staff in Baghdad when it became aware of such atrocities, fully broadcast the details of those atrocities, and it might have retained a shred of credibility.
It now is confirmed that CNN is not a news organization, it is a pack of pandering leftists who put profits first, and truth last. Funny, isn't that how they always slam those 'evil capitalists' they seem to deplore? Coward! This from an organization that will breathlessly report on anything about the Bush Administration that they perceive (insinuate) to have a hint of scandal: Cheney and the energy plan, Lott's comments, the Bush girls, ties to Enron, yet they cannot tell the truth about a murderous regime.
SAY IT! The only place a reporter can report (or manufacture a lie and report it) without fear is in the US, a country these bums work to tear down with every broadcast. PATHETIC! I'm sure CNN has the same side deal going with the Palestinian authority. This explains so much.
For over a decade CNN has knowingly hidden the truth about Saddam for years. People have been tortured and killed because CNN hid the truth in order to keep an office open in Iraq. But why? They weren’t reporting the truth! Read this news executive’s excuses. His hypocrisy is disgusting.
Why not pull their reporters out of Iraq and tell the truth about Saddam a year ago? They knew then that the truth would have supported George Bush’s policy on Iraq. Knowing what they did about the monster in Baghdad, why did CNN continue their ‘neutral’ editorial stand on going to war against what they knew was a regime of terror? Greed or cowardice?
For the sake of their business (which was knowingly reporting half truths and lies) they have been silent handmaidens to Saddam Hussein. They remained silent when the truth would have saved innocent lives. CNN is an accomplice to Saddam’s murders.
So he warned the King of Jordan.... why not the 2 brother-in-laws? They're dead. This really was disgusting. Out of his own mouth he condemns himself and it's written on paper! I guess confession is good for the soul, but how can he live with himself, knowing what he knew and staying silent. He should have been sitting next to Sec. Powell at the UN...adding his information to World!
And these are the guys who'd like the world to think the USA went to Iraq for the oil? Interesting how "businesses" if they support socialism and Democrats (think Hughes, Apple etc) get a free ride in the media (even when they ARE the media) but businesses who might not support Dems are excoriated (think Haliburton, MicroSoft).
Eason Jordan states that Uday Hussein told him that he was going to assassinate King Hussein of Jordan and his two brothers-in-law who had defected. Jordan says he "felt a moral obligation" to tell King Hussein about the threat. That's all fine and good, but didn't he have the same "moral obligation" to warn Uday's brothers-in-law??? If not personally, at least through US intelligence channels?
Well, he didn't. The brothers-in-law were lured back to Iraq under promises of their well-being - and then executed. CNN has blood on its hands, and I bet this is only the tip of the iceberg. When you know evil exists and you allow it to continue, you are just as responsible as those committing the evil. CNN does the exact SAME THING in Cuba, ever since it arrived there after securing permission to "broadcast" (CNN term for exporting propaganda). The network has a permanent female career correspondent there who, to date, has never uttered a negative word about the government. These people are media high-grade cyanide.
One has to wonder how many lives might have been saved if the press had told the truth about the torture in Iraq. What really angers me is how so many of these news outlets pretended there was no or little basis to the torture stories. Now, all of a sudden, they tell the truth. Perhaps if they had closed their bureaus and gone public with the atrocities hundreds if not thousands might have been saved. A pox on all their houses.
So who is responsible for the deaths of more people? ENRON, Global Crossing, Exxon, the timber industry, Newt Gingrich, and all the other whipping boys of the left ADDED TOGETHER, or CNN? Pull the plug on CNN... they are DONE!
Your long post seems to revolve around "CNN should have left Baghdad when they learned how evil the regime was". The actual article described why they couldn't just take their staff back: they worked with Iraqi translators and other support personnel who could not leave.
I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation myself... keeping contact with evil, and trying to portray it in a useful way for ultimate good, or shunning contact with evil knowing that my action would condemn an innocent person and their family to torture and murder. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision myself.
I'm not sure what I'd do in such a situation myself... keeping contact with evil, and trying to portray it in a useful way for ultimate good, or shunning contact with evil knowing that my action would condemn an innocent person and their family to torture and murder. I'm glad I didn't have to make that decision myself.
So nice to see everyone rationalizing Saddam and the Baathist party's behavior.
Doesn' anyone here hate facisim anymore?
Doesn' anyone here hate facisim anymore?
If you see that, you're deluded. If you don't see that, you're a liar.
Which is it?
Which is it?
Anyone with a brain in their head can realize from the mainstream media footage that the Marines did not just wander into Baghdad and suddenly everyone started dancing in the streets. That wouldn't even make a good movie, let alone remotely happen in real life.
That was clearly a media event. This is an information war as much as it is a conventional war. In any country, you can find people who will support a foreign invading army. This is true throughout history. It would happen here if this country was invaded for some reason (the people on this site are enough to convince you of that).
Its truly a shame that so many Americans, whether you support the war or not, are so programmable that they accept whatever simplistic logic offered to them by the TV and radio news. What's even more disturbing are the college-educated "journalists" who don't have any problems producing poor-quality infotainment as selling it as real news.
That was clearly a media event. This is an information war as much as it is a conventional war. In any country, you can find people who will support a foreign invading army. This is true throughout history. It would happen here if this country was invaded for some reason (the people on this site are enough to convince you of that).
Its truly a shame that so many Americans, whether you support the war or not, are so programmable that they accept whatever simplistic logic offered to them by the TV and radio news. What's even more disturbing are the college-educated "journalists" who don't have any problems producing poor-quality infotainment as selling it as real news.
I watched CNN's "Saddam Hussein Biography" before this war started. It presented an interesting and enlightening viewpoint who to the "true revolutionary leader." About a week later I watched the full out Saddam marathon on the History Channel. It fully elaborated on the WELL DOCUMENTED (one only had to read the Baghdad Newspaper during Saddam's reign to see it) cases of horror and torture which went on everyday during his reign. It seems convient for this news to come out now, I do not doubt its authenticity, but see this as just another ploy to make what CNN reports seem like it is the truth, when other networks offer greater authenticity. "We had the truth, but ... (conveniently) ... decided not to report it when reporting would have meant the most." <--A Parody of my own making
Is this supposed to take away from how evil the Iraqi regime was? Much worse atrocities were PURPOSELY carried out by them. I wan't to see the statistics but I bet more people died from car accidents worldwide during this segment of the war than actual casualties in it.
A more appropriate comparison: More people were killed last year by Saddam's regime than by the U.S. invasion.
After all, that is what all the cheering is about.
After all, that is what all the cheering is about.
If the invasion of Iraq was about getting rid of evil, America would invade Israel. Saddam, evil as he was, was not one bit worse than Sharon, and a heck of a lot less dangerous.
Can you prove that?
How?
How many more were the victims of of the Anglo-American blockade?
How?
How many more were the victims of of the Anglo-American blockade?
just wondering what else I can throw to avoid actually addressing the fact that the Baathist party is a fascist party and Saddam really was a bad guy.
just wondering what else i can say to justify that in the end, when all the bullshit is cut, the peace protests DID not distance themselves adequately from support of Saddam's group.
just wondering why I don't feel guilty in trying to keep this guy and his fascist party in power longer simply to thwart America when perhaps a plan could have been made to stop both..
just wondering why I couldn't think of a strategy to get Saddam out of power, peace back to the people of Iraq ALL in time to stop the invasion.
just wondering why our protests were so one sided.
Yeah, other countries are bad but why couldn't Iraq be lumped with all these other evil countries? Why is any criticism of the fascist Iraqi government met with 'but, but, but'.
just wondering what else i can say to justify that in the end, when all the bullshit is cut, the peace protests DID not distance themselves adequately from support of Saddam's group.
just wondering why I don't feel guilty in trying to keep this guy and his fascist party in power longer simply to thwart America when perhaps a plan could have been made to stop both..
just wondering why I couldn't think of a strategy to get Saddam out of power, peace back to the people of Iraq ALL in time to stop the invasion.
just wondering why our protests were so one sided.
Yeah, other countries are bad but why couldn't Iraq be lumped with all these other evil countries? Why is any criticism of the fascist Iraqi government met with 'but, but, but'.
Thanks for being one of our most loyal viewers. We distort, you comply.
Eason Jordan blew it bigtime!! How can anyone ever watch CNN ever again and not wonder "What do they know that they're not willing to tell me?"
Is Amanpour a muslim?
Saying ariel sharon is "evil" like saddam hussein is, well, is fucking retarded and inaccurate.
But it's politically correct now, or something.
But it's politically correct now, or something.
The author said it all when he said that working for a foreign news bureau did not protect Iraqui citizens.
That is because Saddam knew that the venality of CNN was greater than its concern for its employees.
In putting their profitable perch in Baghdad above basic morality, CNN joined the ranks of the Carthaginians instead of the Romans.
The Carthaginians viewed the world in terms of profit and loss only.
This inveterate view got them killed, their city destroyed, and the very ground they walked on salted.
It has been several years now since I watched CNN and that is only when there is no other news source available.
If they cannot be trusted to protect their loyal employees from weeks of vicious torture, they cannot be trusted to tell me the truth about anything whatsoever.
That is because Saddam knew that the venality of CNN was greater than its concern for its employees.
In putting their profitable perch in Baghdad above basic morality, CNN joined the ranks of the Carthaginians instead of the Romans.
The Carthaginians viewed the world in terms of profit and loss only.
This inveterate view got them killed, their city destroyed, and the very ground they walked on salted.
It has been several years now since I watched CNN and that is only when there is no other news source available.
If they cannot be trusted to protect their loyal employees from weeks of vicious torture, they cannot be trusted to tell me the truth about anything whatsoever.
All of this happened because Clinton and his worthless wife sat on their asses kissing ass and accomplishing nothing but screwing whores, interns and disgraceing the office of the President.
Now she has a "vision" to screw us again. What 2 pieces of shit to have had a chance to eliminate Saddam and did actually nothing in any way.
Now she has a "vision" to screw us again. What 2 pieces of shit to have had a chance to eliminate Saddam and did actually nothing in any way.
My wife and I traveled to Jordan and Palestine a few years ago and our guide, a captain in the Israeli Army said that CNN is a very unreliable source of information, reporting six month old news as if it happened yesterday and rock throwing incidents as major attacks, etc. He said he was traveling in the US and saw displayed on TV a rock throwing incident that he saw personally in Israel six months earlier with a lot of false news connected with it. CNN was the source.
Even if only half of the reported atrocities were true it is really sad that a race of humans would allow this to continue. I feel no remorse for any of them. The new start being handed to them by the American Tax dollar will, I fear not endure because it was not going to be cherished as a self fought freedom.
Shame on you for your cowardly silence. You failed in your duty to inform the public and allowed attrocities to continue. Yes, some individuals may have died in the process of serving the greater good. As is happening now.
Easy for you to say when you aren't the one either at risk of being killed or the person who will have those deaths on your conscience. Never criticize someone for making the hard choices unless you've been in their shoes. Shame on them? Shame on *you* for being an armchair reporter!
How sad that the ugly truth behind Amonpours comments come as such a surprise to the public. They are stage managed, massaged and lied to.. UFO's and deaths become non events with CNN only reporting that which the powers that be allow... pressure placed at high level holds, alters, or kills news stories. The whole system of reportage is comprimised, the elections are comprimised, the system and the truth are comprimised daily...
2003 was not a banner year for reporting and when the truth is ignored by media outlets because its unpopular with the current administration...
We are all in trouble.. Hats off to Christine.. for finally saying out loud what I was thinking anyway.
2003 was not a banner year for reporting and when the truth is ignored by media outlets because its unpopular with the current administration...
We are all in trouble.. Hats off to Christine.. for finally saying out loud what I was thinking anyway.
For more information:
http://www.livingthelifeofholly.com
who has nothing to fear. He exposes a LOT that CNN only hints at...
"Corruption in Iraq"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014
The following are the words of New York Times correspondent John F. Burns, on his experiences reporting from Baghdad during the war. Excerpted from the book Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq, an Oral History by Bill Katovsky and Timothy Carlson, published this week by The Lyons Press, used with permission.
From the point of view of my being in Baghdad, I had more authority than anybody else. Without contest, I was the most closely watched and unfavored of all the correspondents there because of what I wrote about terror whilst Saddam Hussein was still in power.
Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.
...
In February I was denied a visa. Then I found there were visas available. I was in Amman. Some of my rivals who had omitted to notice that Iraq was a terror state were busy here sucking up. They were very pleased with themselves. These were people who'd argued that it was essential to be in Iraq for the war. I got a visa of dubious quality; it was a visa which allowed me to come in and cover the peace movement.
I assumed I would be thrown out immediately. I arrived only two weeks before the war. They accredited me. They took my passport away and held it for five days until a man who is said to be a deputy director of the Mukhabarat showed up one day -- a certain Mr. Sa'ad Mutana.
He was assigned to be my minder. He was an extremely unpleasant man. At this point a dozen people from the information ministry came to me and said, "Get out!" They said he was certainly a senior official. He introduced himself as a former general. The reason they kept me here is that when the war starts, I could become a hostage.
Well, I stayed. On the night of April 1, they came to my room at this hotel and said, "You're under arrest. We've known all along you're a CIA agent. You will now collaborate with us or we will take you to a place from which you will not return." They stole all my equipment. They stole all my money.
Then they left. The hotel had no electrical power at the time. They said, "You stay in your room." I assumed they left somebody outside. I went out into the darkened corridor. There was nobody there, so I slipped into the stairway.
To tell you the truth, I didn't know what to do. As it happened, a friend of mine, an Italian television correspondent, happened to be coming up the stairwell. She asked, "What are you doing?" I replied, "I really don't know. I'm at wit's end." She said, "You come to my room. They won't attack my room." She is a former Italian communist who had not challenged them.
So there's a strange inversion. I found my safety at a critical moment with an old friend who had not challenged them.
I then arranged a meeting with [General Uday] Al-Tayyib through my Italian friend. "Director," I said to him, "if something happens to me now, the facts are all well known to my newspaper and well known to people in Washington, and you will be held directly responsible. If something happens to me, you will go before an American military tribunal and I wouldn't be surprised if you were shot. So you better do something to stop it." He seemed frightened. The director said, "I'll see what I can do."
A week earlier I had been apprised by the Times that the ministry of information building was to be destroyed in twenty-four hours. We had a general notification that the ministry of information and the Al Rashid Hotel were not excluded from the target lists. But as long as we were all in those buildings, they wouldn't attack.
So we had moved to the Palestine Hotel, but the TV networks were still filing from the information ministry because they were not allowed to file from anywhere else. Which is why CNN got expelled. They refused to go on filing from there; they used a videophone to file their stories on the first heavy night of bombing on March 21. They were caught with a videophone and they were expelled by dawn.
So in the three or four days that followed, I got a call from the Times saying that they had certain indications from the Pentagon that in twenty-four hours the information ministry would be gone. So I got up at 2:00 a.m., and I said to people downstairs, "Get Mr. Al-Tayyib here." He arrived at 5:00 a.m and I said to him, "Listen to me and listen carefully. I'm not going to cause a panic among journalists. I remember what you did to CNN the last time. I don't want to be accused of spreading alarm and despondency, but you've got to close that ministry down, because anybody who's in that building tomorrow night will be killed. We have friends in Washington. People who are concerned about my welfare and that of other American correspondents. That's how we know it."
For twenty-four hours he said he'd see what he could do. They did nothing. That night at 8:00 p.m, I went to every floor of the ministry. I told everybody. "Get off! Get off this building. It's going to be attacked this night."
When I got back to my hotel room I got another call from New York saying it's been put off twenty-four hours because of weather. It was after my second meeting with Al-Tayyib that they raided my room. He shouted at me. He said, "We know you're a CIA agent because they attacked the ministry." I said, "You lying son of a bitch. I told you that because I come from a newspaper and a country who cares about people. We were told this on the basis of human decency. Not just for ourselves but also for Iraqis. They didn't want to kill innocent Iraqis. You failed to do anything at all about it."
I went there two nights running to get people out. As a result, there was only one person injured, a secretary to the minister, which is pretty amazing considering they hit the building with seven or eight cruise missiles. I said, "You're a son of a bitch. You know exactly what the truth of this was. I told you as a matter of decency and you did nothing at all. Now you invert this to say I'm a CIA agent." The end of the story was that on the night of April 8, he stole $200,000.
Now this son of a bitch sits in his home about three miles from here, saying he expects to be re-appointed director general of information. He has been meeting with director generals of ministries and is using a vetting process where they will disqualify only senior Ba'ath Party officials. I think this guy will be disqualified because he was a Mukhabarat official, but he is now saying to visiting correspondents, "Well, of course, we all knew it was time for a change in Iraq." This was a man who is incapable of telling the truth, who attempted at every opportunity to seduce Western women correspondents. He was screwing people in his office. He had photographs of himself and Saddam Hussein and a box of Viagra. This was a loathsome character altogether.
...
Now left with the residue of all of this, I would say there are serious lessons to be learned. Editors of great newspapers, and small newspapers, and editors of great television networks should exact from their correspondents the obligation of telling the truth about these places. It's not impossible to tell the truth. I have a conviction about closed societies, that they're actually much easier to report on than they seem, because the act of closure is itself revealing. Every lie tells you a truth. If you just leave your eyes and ears open, it's extremely revealing.
We now know that this place was a lot more terrible than even people like me had thought. There is such a thing as absolute evil. I think people just simply didn't recognize it. They rationalized it away. I cannot tell you with what fury I listened to people tell me throughout the autumn that I must be on a kamikaze mission. They said it with a great deal of glee, over the years, that this was not a place like the others.
I did a piece on Uday Hussein and his use of the National Olympic Committee headquarters as a torture site. It's not just journalists who turned a blind eye. Juan Antonio Samaranch of the International Olympic Committee could not have been unaware that Western human rights reports for years had been reporting the National Olympic Committee building had been used as a torture center. I went through its file cabinets and got letter after letter from Juan Antonio Samaranch to Uday Saddam Hussein: "The universal spirit of sport," "My esteemed colleague." The world chose in the main to ignore this.
For some reason or another, Mr. Bush chose to make his principal case on weapons of mass destruction, which is still an open case. This war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights, alone.
As far as I am concerned, when they hire me, they hire somebody who has a conscience and who has a passion about these things. I think I was a little bit advantaged in this, because I am 58 years old.
Look, I don't believe in the journalist as hero, because I think that wherever we go, and whatever degree of resolve that may be required of us, there are always much, much braver people than us. I travel in a suit of armor. I work for The New York Times. That means that I have the renown of the paper, plus the power of the United States government. Let's be honest. Should anything untoward come to me, I have a flak jacket. I have a wallet full with dollars. I'm here by choice. I have the incentive of being on the front page of The New York Times, and being nominated for major newspaper prizes.
The people who we write about have none of these advantages. They are stuck here with no food and no money. I don't want to be pious about this, but for a journalist to present himself as a hero in this situation is completely and totally bogus.
We have the lure of a spectacular reward. That draws us on. I got a Pulitzer Prize in Sarajevo, which was awarded for "bravery" or something somewhere in the citation. I said, and I absolutely meant it, "I assume that we are talking here about chronicling the bravery of the people of a city that was being murdered. That was where bravery came into this. Then there were no rewards save the possibility of surviving." So I don't want to present myself here as anything like that. No, I don't. As a matter of fact, I think this vainglorious ambition is part of the same problem really. It is the pursuit of power. Renown. Fame.
There is corruption in our business. We need to get back to basics. This war should be studied and talked about. In the run up to this war, to my mind, there was a gross abdication of responsibility. You have to be ready to listen to whispers.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters [at] editorandpublisher.com.
"Corruption in Iraq"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1979014
The following are the words of New York Times correspondent John F. Burns, on his experiences reporting from Baghdad during the war. Excerpted from the book Embedded: The Media at War in Iraq, an Oral History by Bill Katovsky and Timothy Carlson, published this week by The Lyons Press, used with permission.
From the point of view of my being in Baghdad, I had more authority than anybody else. Without contest, I was the most closely watched and unfavored of all the correspondents there because of what I wrote about terror whilst Saddam Hussein was still in power.
Terror, totalitarian states, and their ways are nothing new to me, but I felt from the start that this was in a category by itself, with the possible exception in the present world of North Korea. I felt that that was the central truth that has to be told about this place. It was also the essential truth that was untold by the vast majority of correspondents here. Why? Because they judged that the only way they could keep themselves in play here was to pretend that it was okay.
There were correspondents who thought it appropriate to seek the approbation of the people who governed their lives. This was the ministry of information, and particularly the director of the ministry. By taking him out for long candlelit dinners, plying him with sweet cakes, plying him with mobile phones at $600 each for members of his family, and giving bribes of thousands of dollars. Senior members of the information ministry took hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes from these television correspondents who then behaved as if they were in Belgium. They never mentioned the function of minders. Never mentioned terror.
In one case, a correspondent actually went to the Internet Center at the Al-Rashid Hotel and printed out copies of his and other people's stories -- mine included -- specifically in order to be able to show the difference between himself and the others. He wanted to show what a good boy he was compared to this enemy of the state. He was with a major American newspaper.
Yeah, it was an absolutely disgraceful performance. CNN's Eason Jordan's op-ed piece in The New York Times missed that point completely. The point is not whether we protect the people who work for us by not disclosing the terrible things they tell us. Of course we do. But the people who work for us are only one thousandth of one percent of the people of Iraq. So why not tell the story of the other people of Iraq? It doesn't preclude you from telling about terror. Of murder on a mass scale just because you won't talk about how your driver's brother was murdered.
...
In February I was denied a visa. Then I found there were visas available. I was in Amman. Some of my rivals who had omitted to notice that Iraq was a terror state were busy here sucking up. They were very pleased with themselves. These were people who'd argued that it was essential to be in Iraq for the war. I got a visa of dubious quality; it was a visa which allowed me to come in and cover the peace movement.
I assumed I would be thrown out immediately. I arrived only two weeks before the war. They accredited me. They took my passport away and held it for five days until a man who is said to be a deputy director of the Mukhabarat showed up one day -- a certain Mr. Sa'ad Mutana.
He was assigned to be my minder. He was an extremely unpleasant man. At this point a dozen people from the information ministry came to me and said, "Get out!" They said he was certainly a senior official. He introduced himself as a former general. The reason they kept me here is that when the war starts, I could become a hostage.
Well, I stayed. On the night of April 1, they came to my room at this hotel and said, "You're under arrest. We've known all along you're a CIA agent. You will now collaborate with us or we will take you to a place from which you will not return." They stole all my equipment. They stole all my money.
Then they left. The hotel had no electrical power at the time. They said, "You stay in your room." I assumed they left somebody outside. I went out into the darkened corridor. There was nobody there, so I slipped into the stairway.
To tell you the truth, I didn't know what to do. As it happened, a friend of mine, an Italian television correspondent, happened to be coming up the stairwell. She asked, "What are you doing?" I replied, "I really don't know. I'm at wit's end." She said, "You come to my room. They won't attack my room." She is a former Italian communist who had not challenged them.
So there's a strange inversion. I found my safety at a critical moment with an old friend who had not challenged them.
I then arranged a meeting with [General Uday] Al-Tayyib through my Italian friend. "Director," I said to him, "if something happens to me now, the facts are all well known to my newspaper and well known to people in Washington, and you will be held directly responsible. If something happens to me, you will go before an American military tribunal and I wouldn't be surprised if you were shot. So you better do something to stop it." He seemed frightened. The director said, "I'll see what I can do."
A week earlier I had been apprised by the Times that the ministry of information building was to be destroyed in twenty-four hours. We had a general notification that the ministry of information and the Al Rashid Hotel were not excluded from the target lists. But as long as we were all in those buildings, they wouldn't attack.
So we had moved to the Palestine Hotel, but the TV networks were still filing from the information ministry because they were not allowed to file from anywhere else. Which is why CNN got expelled. They refused to go on filing from there; they used a videophone to file their stories on the first heavy night of bombing on March 21. They were caught with a videophone and they were expelled by dawn.
So in the three or four days that followed, I got a call from the Times saying that they had certain indications from the Pentagon that in twenty-four hours the information ministry would be gone. So I got up at 2:00 a.m., and I said to people downstairs, "Get Mr. Al-Tayyib here." He arrived at 5:00 a.m and I said to him, "Listen to me and listen carefully. I'm not going to cause a panic among journalists. I remember what you did to CNN the last time. I don't want to be accused of spreading alarm and despondency, but you've got to close that ministry down, because anybody who's in that building tomorrow night will be killed. We have friends in Washington. People who are concerned about my welfare and that of other American correspondents. That's how we know it."
For twenty-four hours he said he'd see what he could do. They did nothing. That night at 8:00 p.m, I went to every floor of the ministry. I told everybody. "Get off! Get off this building. It's going to be attacked this night."
When I got back to my hotel room I got another call from New York saying it's been put off twenty-four hours because of weather. It was after my second meeting with Al-Tayyib that they raided my room. He shouted at me. He said, "We know you're a CIA agent because they attacked the ministry." I said, "You lying son of a bitch. I told you that because I come from a newspaper and a country who cares about people. We were told this on the basis of human decency. Not just for ourselves but also for Iraqis. They didn't want to kill innocent Iraqis. You failed to do anything at all about it."
I went there two nights running to get people out. As a result, there was only one person injured, a secretary to the minister, which is pretty amazing considering they hit the building with seven or eight cruise missiles. I said, "You're a son of a bitch. You know exactly what the truth of this was. I told you as a matter of decency and you did nothing at all. Now you invert this to say I'm a CIA agent." The end of the story was that on the night of April 8, he stole $200,000.
Now this son of a bitch sits in his home about three miles from here, saying he expects to be re-appointed director general of information. He has been meeting with director generals of ministries and is using a vetting process where they will disqualify only senior Ba'ath Party officials. I think this guy will be disqualified because he was a Mukhabarat official, but he is now saying to visiting correspondents, "Well, of course, we all knew it was time for a change in Iraq." This was a man who is incapable of telling the truth, who attempted at every opportunity to seduce Western women correspondents. He was screwing people in his office. He had photographs of himself and Saddam Hussein and a box of Viagra. This was a loathsome character altogether.
...
Now left with the residue of all of this, I would say there are serious lessons to be learned. Editors of great newspapers, and small newspapers, and editors of great television networks should exact from their correspondents the obligation of telling the truth about these places. It's not impossible to tell the truth. I have a conviction about closed societies, that they're actually much easier to report on than they seem, because the act of closure is itself revealing. Every lie tells you a truth. If you just leave your eyes and ears open, it's extremely revealing.
We now know that this place was a lot more terrible than even people like me had thought. There is such a thing as absolute evil. I think people just simply didn't recognize it. They rationalized it away. I cannot tell you with what fury I listened to people tell me throughout the autumn that I must be on a kamikaze mission. They said it with a great deal of glee, over the years, that this was not a place like the others.
I did a piece on Uday Hussein and his use of the National Olympic Committee headquarters as a torture site. It's not just journalists who turned a blind eye. Juan Antonio Samaranch of the International Olympic Committee could not have been unaware that Western human rights reports for years had been reporting the National Olympic Committee building had been used as a torture center. I went through its file cabinets and got letter after letter from Juan Antonio Samaranch to Uday Saddam Hussein: "The universal spirit of sport," "My esteemed colleague." The world chose in the main to ignore this.
For some reason or another, Mr. Bush chose to make his principal case on weapons of mass destruction, which is still an open case. This war could have been justified any time on the basis of human rights, alone.
As far as I am concerned, when they hire me, they hire somebody who has a conscience and who has a passion about these things. I think I was a little bit advantaged in this, because I am 58 years old.
Look, I don't believe in the journalist as hero, because I think that wherever we go, and whatever degree of resolve that may be required of us, there are always much, much braver people than us. I travel in a suit of armor. I work for The New York Times. That means that I have the renown of the paper, plus the power of the United States government. Let's be honest. Should anything untoward come to me, I have a flak jacket. I have a wallet full with dollars. I'm here by choice. I have the incentive of being on the front page of The New York Times, and being nominated for major newspaper prizes.
The people who we write about have none of these advantages. They are stuck here with no food and no money. I don't want to be pious about this, but for a journalist to present himself as a hero in this situation is completely and totally bogus.
We have the lure of a spectacular reward. That draws us on. I got a Pulitzer Prize in Sarajevo, which was awarded for "bravery" or something somewhere in the citation. I said, and I absolutely meant it, "I assume that we are talking here about chronicling the bravery of the people of a city that was being murdered. That was where bravery came into this. Then there were no rewards save the possibility of surviving." So I don't want to present myself here as anything like that. No, I don't. As a matter of fact, I think this vainglorious ambition is part of the same problem really. It is the pursuit of power. Renown. Fame.
There is corruption in our business. We need to get back to basics. This war should be studied and talked about. In the run up to this war, to my mind, there was a gross abdication of responsibility. You have to be ready to listen to whispers.
---
E&P welcomes letters to the editor: letters [at] editorandpublisher.com.
The US freed texans from the corrupt mexican govt. you better check your history . remember the alamo
Your gullibility in believing anything this woman reports is fascinating. Her credibility suffered 100% when she was asked if she had been ordered to censor any of her stories, her answer was, NO. Now she makes these statements. Another leftist joining the ranks of that nitwit Franken..............
Eason Jordon and C. Amanpour have confirmed what I think I have known for a long time. CNN is not to be trusted. They have for a long time deliberately distorted the facts for their own economic gain. This is unthinkable for a news agency. They have done it. They admit it. Now the consumming public should turn off CNN completely and let that for profit organization die an economic death. I think we can already see it happening. It is reflected in the nose dive in their number in their viewing audience.
"If the invasion of Iraq was about getting rid of evil, America would invade Israel. Saddam, evil as he was, was not one bit worse than Sharon, and a heck of a lot less dangerous."
How ignorant of a statement is that?
An anti-semetic is all you are...
How ignorant of a statement is that?
An anti-semetic is all you are...
Why all the fuss? CNN has been slanting news to the left for decades. The fact that they chose to not report on the threats, intimidation and treatment their own reporters received from Hussein's regime in order to protect them and others is commendable.
The fact that they haven't done a full fledged documentary piece on the subject and continue to paint a gloom & doom scenario simply because they hate the President is despicable.
CNN - Always working hard to promote the moronic mentality of jerks like Al Franken... And they wonder why they're last in the ratings...
The fact that they haven't done a full fledged documentary piece on the subject and continue to paint a gloom & doom scenario simply because they hate the President is despicable.
CNN - Always working hard to promote the moronic mentality of jerks like Al Franken... And they wonder why they're last in the ratings...
With the recent history of this country, this story ranks right up there with soldiers "taking premature babies out of incubaters", our demonization story of Gulf War I.
He who actually beleives anthing this administration says does so at his own peril.
He who actually beleives anthing this administration says does so at his own peril.
Eason Jordan needed to come forward with all this stories much earlier. He should have gathered evidence and run with it to another TV or Cable news network. Have he done so, he would have saved many lives. His account of CNN implicit covert service to appease Saddam Hussein's butchers is appreciated, but it is twelve years too late for some courageous Iraquis.
Dear CNN:
I sincerely hope that your News bureau will have a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and help the Iraqi
people to get out of their pits and form a democractic country within the framework of their culture and needs. Perehaps, we cannot have an American type democracy there, but definitely they can have democracy that will ensure their freedom, justice, and liberty to their country. Juicy news may accelerate the ratings but it will only undo a country. I do appreciate what USA is trying to help the people who are tortured by Saddam and his hench men. I hope the world will see the sufferings of Iraqi people and now work with them and USA to rebuild that country. The media and press should also a play a vital role to make it happen.
Sincerely,
P. Joseph Raju
I sincerely hope that your News bureau will have a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and help the Iraqi
people to get out of their pits and form a democractic country within the framework of their culture and needs. Perehaps, we cannot have an American type democracy there, but definitely they can have democracy that will ensure their freedom, justice, and liberty to their country. Juicy news may accelerate the ratings but it will only undo a country. I do appreciate what USA is trying to help the people who are tortured by Saddam and his hench men. I hope the world will see the sufferings of Iraqi people and now work with them and USA to rebuild that country. The media and press should also a play a vital role to make it happen.
Sincerely,
P. Joseph Raju
Dear CNN:
I sincerely hope that your News bureau will have a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and help the Iraqi
people to get out of their pits and form a democractic country within the framework of their culture and needs. Perehaps, we cannot have an American type democracy there, but definitely they can have democracy that will ensure their freedom, justice, and liberty to their country. Juicy news may accelerate the ratings but it will only undo a country. I do appreciate what USA is trying to help the people who are tortured by Saddam and his hench men. I hope the world will see the sufferings of Iraqi people and now work with them and USA to rebuild that country. The media and press should also a play a vital role to make it happen.
Sincerely,
P. Joseph Raju
I sincerely hope that your News bureau will have a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and help the Iraqi
people to get out of their pits and form a democractic country within the framework of their culture and needs. Perehaps, we cannot have an American type democracy there, but definitely they can have democracy that will ensure their freedom, justice, and liberty to their country. Juicy news may accelerate the ratings but it will only undo a country. I do appreciate what USA is trying to help the people who are tortured by Saddam and his hench men. I hope the world will see the sufferings of Iraqi people and now work with them and USA to rebuild that country. The media and press should also a play a vital role to make it happen.
Sincerely,
P. Joseph Raju
If Hussein hadn't been the evil person that he was, which forced us to remove him, none of that would have happened. Blame it on Saddam.
I find it a true shame.
It is a shame that free people propogate the enslavement of other fellow man, when they are the international voice from the free world
It is a shame that when information that everyone knows deep down in their hearts as being true is told, their political viewpoints ratify it as being terrible or justifiable depending upon who it makes look good.
It is a shame that we are stuck here discussing how much propaganda was used on each side to control what other people thought; and not knowing that we, no matter why you think we went there, are finally taking the proactive side of history by preventing massacre or an event or war that would bring us into the middle East anyway instead of waiting for it to happen.
Finally it is a shame that for all of the pomp and circumstance, people have started to forget that there are reasons for military action. Every one of them are whispered on the lips of the families that they left behind. For too long Americans have been killed for being Americans. We don't need to change to keep someone from hating us, it won't work. We have to show strength with compassion so they will respect us.........friendship will grow from respect, not the other way around
It is a shame that free people propogate the enslavement of other fellow man, when they are the international voice from the free world
It is a shame that when information that everyone knows deep down in their hearts as being true is told, their political viewpoints ratify it as being terrible or justifiable depending upon who it makes look good.
It is a shame that we are stuck here discussing how much propaganda was used on each side to control what other people thought; and not knowing that we, no matter why you think we went there, are finally taking the proactive side of history by preventing massacre or an event or war that would bring us into the middle East anyway instead of waiting for it to happen.
Finally it is a shame that for all of the pomp and circumstance, people have started to forget that there are reasons for military action. Every one of them are whispered on the lips of the families that they left behind. For too long Americans have been killed for being Americans. We don't need to change to keep someone from hating us, it won't work. We have to show strength with compassion so they will respect us.........friendship will grow from respect, not the other way around
Anyone who spends the time to watch the "candy coated" so called news on CNN has athe time to watch paint dry.
Chuck, I was there. If you thought these guys weren't a bunch of brutal savages, then why weren't you over there serving as a human shield?
Ironic isn't it that people like you were happy to let the old regime rape, toture and kill thousands so that you could feel good about yourself and continue to bash the administration in your ill-informed ignorant peacenik bliss. Who the hell are you to tell those people that they have to live like that?
Clinton and the U.N. enabled the regime to destroy that country. (See, e.g., "Marsh Arabs"). We are dying now to try and help these people - most of whom welcome the chance to be free. Do you think 12 more years of U.N. sanctions (that only hurt the Iraqi people as Saddam continued to waste money on missles and palaces), were going to work?
You are entitled to your opinion, go drink a $2.50 latte and take comfort knowing that thousands of your fellow countrymen are protecting you and helping to bring democracy to a people who are finally getting a taste of freedom. It is not going to be easy, especially with people like you helping to erode support at home. (See "Somalia").
Now tell me, really, did you honestly believe that the regime was not doing great harm to the Iraqi people? Don't tell me you honestly think Saddam never had any WMD (See "Iraqi Kurds"), or that he couldn't produce more in short order. The fact is that they are better off now. And things will get better, hopefully with the help of U.N. forces.
Thanks for your support, Chuck.
Ironic isn't it that people like you were happy to let the old regime rape, toture and kill thousands so that you could feel good about yourself and continue to bash the administration in your ill-informed ignorant peacenik bliss. Who the hell are you to tell those people that they have to live like that?
Clinton and the U.N. enabled the regime to destroy that country. (See, e.g., "Marsh Arabs"). We are dying now to try and help these people - most of whom welcome the chance to be free. Do you think 12 more years of U.N. sanctions (that only hurt the Iraqi people as Saddam continued to waste money on missles and palaces), were going to work?
You are entitled to your opinion, go drink a $2.50 latte and take comfort knowing that thousands of your fellow countrymen are protecting you and helping to bring democracy to a people who are finally getting a taste of freedom. It is not going to be easy, especially with people like you helping to erode support at home. (See "Somalia").
Now tell me, really, did you honestly believe that the regime was not doing great harm to the Iraqi people? Don't tell me you honestly think Saddam never had any WMD (See "Iraqi Kurds"), or that he couldn't produce more in short order. The fact is that they are better off now. And things will get better, hopefully with the help of U.N. forces.
Thanks for your support, Chuck.
Mr. Eason's revelations should not surprise anyone having reasonable intelligence and an open mind. Lying by selective omission has been the preferred technique for slanting news for as long as I can remember, as it is much harder to discredit that out-and-out lies. Our establishment (that is, liberal-left) alphabet ) "news" media truly constitute a "fifth-column" institution, contributing to the destruction of our constitutional republic, ranking on a "scale of dishonor " with public "education" and the legal "profession." A pox on them all!
Check your history engineer Texans freed themselves from Mexico.
As far as this other stuff goes, its just typical of the grown up 60's hippie mentality that tells everyone else what to think say and do, but does whatever it wants...
Its actually Ironic that they have become the very thing they protested against in the 60's
As far as this other stuff goes, its just typical of the grown up 60's hippie mentality that tells everyone else what to think say and do, but does whatever it wants...
Its actually Ironic that they have become the very thing they protested against in the 60's
Why doesn't CNN put this on their TV news in prime time so we the people know about it?
I'm curious why noone has asked Eason Jordan that if he felt he had such a "moral obligation to warn Jordan's monarch, and I did so the next day." that he didn't have a moral obligation to warn the brothers-in-law who were soon killed. What a self-serving comment on his part.
the news of this is not at all suprising to me, i've know since '91 when i was only 9 years old that saddam was an evil tyrant that needed to be killed. My only hope is that the release of your knowledge of these events will help to persuade the liberal "do-gooder" left to open their eyes. Our president has gotten us in to a just war. a war where we as americans stand on a moral high ground. Our president showed us he has the ability to make a clear distinction between good and evil, and also that he has the heart and courage to stand up against it.
thats a lot more than i can say for the draft dodging panzy who was more worried about his minority votes than about our national security.
thats a lot more than i can say for the draft dodging panzy who was more worried about his minority votes than about our national security.
Oh my god!
Texas freed itself from the Mexicans, following the decisive battle at San Jacinto.
Texas then went on to function as it's own soverign nation for many years after that.
There was no U.S. Government rescue.
The Republic of Texas eventually elected to join the Union years later.
This seminal fact even today still gives many Texans a strong point of pride.
Texas freed itself from the Mexicans, following the decisive battle at San Jacinto.
Texas then went on to function as it's own soverign nation for many years after that.
There was no U.S. Government rescue.
The Republic of Texas eventually elected to join the Union years later.
This seminal fact even today still gives many Texans a strong point of pride.
In view of this information, I would think CNN would now support the invasion of Iraq, report the improvements in that country and stop hawking the negative spin of the administration.
I doubt it will happen since CNN has it's own agenda and a strong liberal bias.
I doubt it will happen since CNN has it's own agenda and a strong liberal bias.
I'm glad some of the atrocities are being uncovereed. Unfortunately for the victims it's too late, but maybe now CNN will revisit it's policy of cover ups. The have harmed this country and it's citizens.
As an aspiring journalist, I find it appalling that anyone would condemn Mr. Easton in this particular forum, or use it as a vessel for bashing CNNs performance in the war. We are all entitled to our opinions, but I would hope that everyone here would have a little respect for the risks reporters from every network and every national newspaper took in order to bring us *any* news from Iraq at all.
CNN is not a figurehead of some weird liberal news conspiracy. It's not like the people over there sit around and discuss how they can slant every piece of news to serve their communist masters or something. For one thing, they're far too busy putting news on your TV set 24 hours a day.
Mr. Easton in particular deserves our respect and our thanks for his candor. It must have been painfully difficult to keep quiet about these terrible incidents for so long, especially since his vocation is journalism.
CNN is not a figurehead of some weird liberal news conspiracy. It's not like the people over there sit around and discuss how they can slant every piece of news to serve their communist masters or something. For one thing, they're far too busy putting news on your TV set 24 hours a day.
Mr. Easton in particular deserves our respect and our thanks for his candor. It must have been painfully difficult to keep quiet about these terrible incidents for so long, especially since his vocation is journalism.
I'm convinced now that CNN is communist news network.
Thanks. Will watch Fox even more.
Thanks. Will watch Fox even more.
Since time began there has been war in this part of ther world. We cannot police the world, obviously it does not work. But not doing you very job of reporting because of fear is so very sad. Do you sleep better at night now that you've told/
If I recall correctly, this is a reprint of an older article. While the Bush administration might not contain any saints, its preferable to the many others who can only say "this wouldn't happen if we ran things" instead of saying how they'd make sure it wouldn't happen. As for CNN; yeah, tough choice I wouldnt want to make in this guys situation. But his article doesn't erase the spin they've put on stories in the past either.
Am I the only one who remembers some of the news reports on Iraq before the war? The ones saying that the prisons, the convenient dissappearance of Iraqi political dissidents, and many other injustices were just political spin from 'lap dogs of the administration'?
Am I the only one who has noticed how many Press Agencies are run more like a business than a source of information? Ratings and income are the bar by which they determine who is who in the reporting world, not credible information. More and more often it appears that News Agencies have a preference for putting articles to print that will either: A) Support or defame their most favored/disfavored influential people, be they businessmen or politicians. Or: B) Pander to whatever they think popular opinion at the time may be, thusly garanteeing they will receive high ratings for showing the people what they want to see.
Then we can take it down a few levels, to the individual reporters. There is no denying that there are those who make their journalism careers by conveniently omitting information, or outright misinterpretation of it, to further their own agendas. Such is the nature of business, which is the model upon which the news media is run these days, you don't get on top by admitting you're wrong. You get on top by convincing everyone you're right. You sell your own ideals, not your opponants.
I'm not trying to say all journalists are scum, there are good ones and bad ones; just like any other career path you can think of. Yeah, oft times what they report is whats needed to further their own (or their employers) agendas, but sometimes they are simply trying to preserve their careers. To keep their jobs. Remember, these news agencies have adopted the business model, which anyone in the know would agree can be quite cut throat at times.
These are people after all, they have bills to pay and mouths to feed, just like the rest of us. In such a line of work displeasing ones superiors can very easily put an end to what would otherwise have been a stellar career. I personally know of one former reporter who was ordered, by her employers, to print outright lies in support of a certain local political figure. For her, integrity came first, she refused to lie. What happened to this reporter you ask? She lost her job for it. In fact, it ruined her journalism career. She found work as a teacher, eventually. An admirable line of work, but nothing compared to a career as a journalist.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you shouldn't be so judgemental unless you've 'walked a mile in their shoes', so to speak.
As for those in here who say we should treat Sharon as we did Saddam, give me a break. He is looking out for the interests of his people, Saddam looked out for his own personal interets. Sharon, while ordering some distasteful things to be done, did them in the belief to preserve the lives of his own people. Just as any politician worth their salt should do. Israel is, after all, surrounded by enemies on all sides. Every neighbor of theirs is an opponant, not only politically, but religiously and ideologically. A very sticky situation.
Why do we, the US, support Israel? Because they are one of the few democracies in the region. And because they are surrounded by these enemies. The Israeli govt didn't just decide to oppress the Palestinians on a whim. It was a result of a war in which all of their muslim neighbors joined up to literally wipe them off the map.
"But the Palestinians are fighting for their land back!" Some of you are probably crying at this point. Yes, well there was a previous Israeli leader that had offered Arafat most, if not all, of their land back; including all of Jerusalem. No strings attached. Arafat declined. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, but I highly doubt it was because he felt the deal was unfair. Heck, the recent roadmap to peace was blown apart by extremists on the Palestinian side of the issue; not by the shells of Israeli tanks. In fact, the Israelis overlooked a few suicide bombings in the interests of the latest plan, but eventually their patience ran out. The Palestinians blew their chances... up. Along with a busload of Israeli civilians. I could go on further about this particular issue, but seeing the length of my writing I'll spare the readers.
As for Bush focusing upon WMDs instead of human rights abuses in Iraq, well look at the nations he was trying to win support from. Europe alone chose to overlook the human rights abuses of Germany preceding WWII until they were threatened by the military expansion of Germany. That is, they were trying to be 'good neighbors'; turning a blind eye to what the Nazi party did so long as they kept it within their own backyard(National boundaries.). To put it in better perspective, Bush argued for WMD in this instance, because they are a potential threat to those outside of Iraq's borders, while human rights violations were not.
Then you have the many other frequent human rights abusers, China for instance. They certainly wouldn't support an invasion based upon the oppression of a nations people, because they are guilty of similar injustices themselves. It would possibly set a political precedent that could potentially lead other nations to call for a regime change for other human rights violators.
I should probably end at this point, my text is growing quite large. So I leave the reader with a quote to consider.
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
Interpret it as you will.
Am I the only one who remembers some of the news reports on Iraq before the war? The ones saying that the prisons, the convenient dissappearance of Iraqi political dissidents, and many other injustices were just political spin from 'lap dogs of the administration'?
Am I the only one who has noticed how many Press Agencies are run more like a business than a source of information? Ratings and income are the bar by which they determine who is who in the reporting world, not credible information. More and more often it appears that News Agencies have a preference for putting articles to print that will either: A) Support or defame their most favored/disfavored influential people, be they businessmen or politicians. Or: B) Pander to whatever they think popular opinion at the time may be, thusly garanteeing they will receive high ratings for showing the people what they want to see.
Then we can take it down a few levels, to the individual reporters. There is no denying that there are those who make their journalism careers by conveniently omitting information, or outright misinterpretation of it, to further their own agendas. Such is the nature of business, which is the model upon which the news media is run these days, you don't get on top by admitting you're wrong. You get on top by convincing everyone you're right. You sell your own ideals, not your opponants.
I'm not trying to say all journalists are scum, there are good ones and bad ones; just like any other career path you can think of. Yeah, oft times what they report is whats needed to further their own (or their employers) agendas, but sometimes they are simply trying to preserve their careers. To keep their jobs. Remember, these news agencies have adopted the business model, which anyone in the know would agree can be quite cut throat at times.
These are people after all, they have bills to pay and mouths to feed, just like the rest of us. In such a line of work displeasing ones superiors can very easily put an end to what would otherwise have been a stellar career. I personally know of one former reporter who was ordered, by her employers, to print outright lies in support of a certain local political figure. For her, integrity came first, she refused to lie. What happened to this reporter you ask? She lost her job for it. In fact, it ruined her journalism career. She found work as a teacher, eventually. An admirable line of work, but nothing compared to a career as a journalist.
I guess what I'm trying to say, is that you shouldn't be so judgemental unless you've 'walked a mile in their shoes', so to speak.
As for those in here who say we should treat Sharon as we did Saddam, give me a break. He is looking out for the interests of his people, Saddam looked out for his own personal interets. Sharon, while ordering some distasteful things to be done, did them in the belief to preserve the lives of his own people. Just as any politician worth their salt should do. Israel is, after all, surrounded by enemies on all sides. Every neighbor of theirs is an opponant, not only politically, but religiously and ideologically. A very sticky situation.
Why do we, the US, support Israel? Because they are one of the few democracies in the region. And because they are surrounded by these enemies. The Israeli govt didn't just decide to oppress the Palestinians on a whim. It was a result of a war in which all of their muslim neighbors joined up to literally wipe them off the map.
"But the Palestinians are fighting for their land back!" Some of you are probably crying at this point. Yes, well there was a previous Israeli leader that had offered Arafat most, if not all, of their land back; including all of Jerusalem. No strings attached. Arafat declined. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, but I highly doubt it was because he felt the deal was unfair. Heck, the recent roadmap to peace was blown apart by extremists on the Palestinian side of the issue; not by the shells of Israeli tanks. In fact, the Israelis overlooked a few suicide bombings in the interests of the latest plan, but eventually their patience ran out. The Palestinians blew their chances... up. Along with a busload of Israeli civilians. I could go on further about this particular issue, but seeing the length of my writing I'll spare the readers.
As for Bush focusing upon WMDs instead of human rights abuses in Iraq, well look at the nations he was trying to win support from. Europe alone chose to overlook the human rights abuses of Germany preceding WWII until they were threatened by the military expansion of Germany. That is, they were trying to be 'good neighbors'; turning a blind eye to what the Nazi party did so long as they kept it within their own backyard(National boundaries.). To put it in better perspective, Bush argued for WMD in this instance, because they are a potential threat to those outside of Iraq's borders, while human rights violations were not.
Then you have the many other frequent human rights abusers, China for instance. They certainly wouldn't support an invasion based upon the oppression of a nations people, because they are guilty of similar injustices themselves. It would possibly set a political precedent that could potentially lead other nations to call for a regime change for other human rights violators.
I should probably end at this point, my text is growing quite large. So I leave the reader with a quote to consider.
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."
Interpret it as you will.
It is interesting to read the reactions to this piece as it reveals the political blinders folks wear when assimilating any new information. Some responders entirely miss any point to revealing the coersion used by Totalitarian states to limit what is and isn't reported in 'mainstream' western media ie; the topic of this thread.
I would hope more news organizations would reveal some of the 'costs of doing business' in getting cooperation from hostile regimes. I would expect that ANY news outfit would have experience with access through wheel greasing, bribery, and editorial compliance with the wishes of the regime being examined. CNN revealing that such things go on is curious since if all Media organizations admitted to it that would constitute a mass confession by big media that ' HEY PEOPLE - YOU ARE UNIVERSALLY AND ROUTINELY BEING LIED TO'. (or at least being told only what can safely be told by a corporate news organization that requires continued access/cooperation of governments in order to function)
So why did this particular confession surface?
It serves 2 purposes:
1) The gristly incentives to keep quiet absolve CNN of guilt for having failed to 'tell all' earlier.
2) The lurid and cringeworthy details of Iraqi brutality will only strengthen the 'moral argument' justifying the US conquest of Iraq even if the initial 'sell' was centered on an imminenet threat of Iraqi WMDs being used in Terror operations on US soil - a rationale which has not seen a lot of evidential support.
This confession is actually useful to the Bushies, it is a plea to audiences to place their horror and outrage at Saddam and his evil flunkies behavior ahead of any outrage over having been mislead by US/UK leadership into a war of aggression. The AL Franken and Amanpour haters should read before they start spewing hatred for CNN, it too does its part in service of the Bush administration.
The propaganda value of Eason Jordan's confession aside, I don't doubt that much of the crimes he reports actually occurred and real people suffered terribly and that represents an outrageous injustice. The War in Iraq is a seperate matter.
I would hope more news organizations would reveal some of the 'costs of doing business' in getting cooperation from hostile regimes. I would expect that ANY news outfit would have experience with access through wheel greasing, bribery, and editorial compliance with the wishes of the regime being examined. CNN revealing that such things go on is curious since if all Media organizations admitted to it that would constitute a mass confession by big media that ' HEY PEOPLE - YOU ARE UNIVERSALLY AND ROUTINELY BEING LIED TO'. (or at least being told only what can safely be told by a corporate news organization that requires continued access/cooperation of governments in order to function)
So why did this particular confession surface?
It serves 2 purposes:
1) The gristly incentives to keep quiet absolve CNN of guilt for having failed to 'tell all' earlier.
2) The lurid and cringeworthy details of Iraqi brutality will only strengthen the 'moral argument' justifying the US conquest of Iraq even if the initial 'sell' was centered on an imminenet threat of Iraqi WMDs being used in Terror operations on US soil - a rationale which has not seen a lot of evidential support.
This confession is actually useful to the Bushies, it is a plea to audiences to place their horror and outrage at Saddam and his evil flunkies behavior ahead of any outrage over having been mislead by US/UK leadership into a war of aggression. The AL Franken and Amanpour haters should read before they start spewing hatred for CNN, it too does its part in service of the Bush administration.
The propaganda value of Eason Jordan's confession aside, I don't doubt that much of the crimes he reports actually occurred and real people suffered terribly and that represents an outrageous injustice. The War in Iraq is a seperate matter.
How can he sleep at night? He acts as if there was no other choice than to pander to a madman. Why not pull out of Bagdad and report the truth? How much money would it take to pay an honest citizen to be a party to such a cover-up?
Each person must make moral decisions in their job and personal life. May we all do a better job than the CNN staff!
Each person must make moral decisions in their job and personal life. May we all do a better job than the CNN staff!
Was Iraq a threat to the USofA? No.
Was Somalia a threat to the USofA? No.
Is Liberia a threat to the USofA? No.
The only real threat to Americans and our freedoms is:
(drum roll here)
The federal government of the US.
Was Somalia a threat to the USofA? No.
Is Liberia a threat to the USofA? No.
The only real threat to Americans and our freedoms is:
(drum roll here)
The federal government of the US.
My God!
How could CNN be in apposition the war knowing what it did? It "still" is againist the war and we have to listen to its liberal speak 24/7.
The liberals can keep CNN, give me FOX!
How could CNN be in apposition the war knowing what it did? It "still" is againist the war and we have to listen to its liberal speak 24/7.
The liberals can keep CNN, give me FOX!
I am not a particularly biblical man, nor am I a perfectly moral man. This does seem to be,however, a generalised discusion of ethics. Therefore, regardless of the risks taken of any journalist, the question at hand is this;
Is a lie of omission a lie and if undertaken by a news agency does it make that news agency a tacit accomplice in the furtherance of that which they do not report?
Is a lie of omission a lie and if undertaken by a news agency does it make that news agency a tacit accomplice in the furtherance of that which they do not report?
This is nothing new for the CLINTON NEWS NETWORK. they are another part of the liberal conspiracy to undermine our country. they can't win at the ballot box so they are trying to do it with lies and radical left wing judges. these are the same kind of people who told us that Russia under communism was doing great while much of its population was being starved or sent off to the gulags
The price of freedom is vigilance.
What does that mean? What does it mean that you read an article and become shocked? What does it mean when fellow citizens respond "Oh my Judeo-Christian God, Saddam was hurting people!!" Wake up and smell the sweet scent of America's decay. Would anyone care for a copy of the "Rise and Fall of Rome"? America's decadence is our own fault, no one else's. It isn't your parents, it isn't your therapist's, it isn't the guy/gal who cut you off on the freeway. It starts with you. When was the last time you talked with your neighbor?
My heart goes out to Mr. Jordan, because unlike the bulk of us he made decisions that actually DID put at risk life and limb. But what emotion I feel for him is a whisper of a shadow compared to the emotion I feel for the Iraqi people - they lived through it - they didn't watch it on CNN or <insert your fav news show here>.
Oh it is sooo easy for us pompous Americans to sit on our High Thrones and say "We are a Super Power ™ - Fear US!" But I remember back a few hundred years when a bunch of hillbilly, county folks armed with hunting rifles took on and defeated The World Empire. People will hate us because we are the superpower and superpower does NOT equate to super morals or super intellect (just look at how our President has used "shock and awe" to replace sympathy with hate and loathing).
Is it good that Saddam was displaced and his regime in ruin? Yes! Is it right that we stand by while a foreign government builds fences to make bombarding a captive people easier? Is it right for the USA to give billions of dollars to a government that endorses and practices torture? Was it right for the USA to liberate Kuwait when it wouldn't liberate Estonia? Blood, oil, and money, these are the things that win elections now-a-days. Oh for a day when two of every three Americans would exercise their Civic Duty and vote. We can not be a Government by the People, if We the People don't vote. Ah well.. just the ramblings of another disillusioned American. I will do what I can locally, I vote, I wore the stars and stripes. I carried by M16. But my service to my County is far from over.
Fear the past all you who forget, for you are walking the well-worn steps of oblivion
What does that mean? What does it mean that you read an article and become shocked? What does it mean when fellow citizens respond "Oh my Judeo-Christian God, Saddam was hurting people!!" Wake up and smell the sweet scent of America's decay. Would anyone care for a copy of the "Rise and Fall of Rome"? America's decadence is our own fault, no one else's. It isn't your parents, it isn't your therapist's, it isn't the guy/gal who cut you off on the freeway. It starts with you. When was the last time you talked with your neighbor?
My heart goes out to Mr. Jordan, because unlike the bulk of us he made decisions that actually DID put at risk life and limb. But what emotion I feel for him is a whisper of a shadow compared to the emotion I feel for the Iraqi people - they lived through it - they didn't watch it on CNN or <insert your fav news show here>.
Oh it is sooo easy for us pompous Americans to sit on our High Thrones and say "We are a Super Power ™ - Fear US!" But I remember back a few hundred years when a bunch of hillbilly, county folks armed with hunting rifles took on and defeated The World Empire. People will hate us because we are the superpower and superpower does NOT equate to super morals or super intellect (just look at how our President has used "shock and awe" to replace sympathy with hate and loathing).
Is it good that Saddam was displaced and his regime in ruin? Yes! Is it right that we stand by while a foreign government builds fences to make bombarding a captive people easier? Is it right for the USA to give billions of dollars to a government that endorses and practices torture? Was it right for the USA to liberate Kuwait when it wouldn't liberate Estonia? Blood, oil, and money, these are the things that win elections now-a-days. Oh for a day when two of every three Americans would exercise their Civic Duty and vote. We can not be a Government by the People, if We the People don't vote. Ah well.. just the ramblings of another disillusioned American. I will do what I can locally, I vote, I wore the stars and stripes. I carried by M16. But my service to my County is far from over.
Fear the past all you who forget, for you are walking the well-worn steps of oblivion
What a profile in courage! I'll bet he still doesn't get it.
How can CNN continue to advertise itself as "the most trusted name in news" ? It's a joke!!!
How can CNN continue to advertise itself as "the most trusted name in news" ? It's a joke!!!
The above article, originating from CNN staff, functions as subtle disinformation, distracting attention from the revelation reported yesterday here:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm
that, according to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, that "the press muzzled itself during the Gulf war" and "CNN 'was intimidated' by the Bush administration and Fox News,
which 'put a climate of fear and self-censorship'" [over CNN.]
What this and several other articles today attempt to do is make the reader forget that Amanpour wasn't talking about censorship in Iraq, but rather, "a climate of fear and self-censorship" created HERE in the united States.
Will YOU be fooled by this clasic disinformation technique?
L. Reichard White
http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-09-14-media-mix_x.htm
that, according to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, that "the press muzzled itself during the Gulf war" and "CNN 'was intimidated' by the Bush administration and Fox News,
which 'put a climate of fear and self-censorship'" [over CNN.]
What this and several other articles today attempt to do is make the reader forget that Amanpour wasn't talking about censorship in Iraq, but rather, "a climate of fear and self-censorship" created HERE in the united States.
Will YOU be fooled by this clasic disinformation technique?
L. Reichard White
Mr. White, I have one question for you. Are you in Iraq? How can you deciede, who is right and who is wrong simply by READING articles? I, personally, would tend to believe the CNN reporter who has been based in Iraq during all these years in question. Mr. Jordan has seen the horrible crimes commited on the people of Iraq, as well as CNN reporters. Ms. Amanpour seems to have her own adgenda and is more or less speaking for HERSELF and offers NO PROOF of any statements she made on the CNBC show of which you speak. She, alone, has made these statements. We have seen MANY other reporters make similar statements as Mr. Jordan has made. Please, don't discount all the horrible, horrible stories of terrible crimes on the Iraqi people. Free press (and free worlds) should allow ALL sides of EVERY story to make it to print.
they can't win at the ballot box so they are trying to do it with lies and radical left wing judges
Excuse me Richard, but you've had lapse in memory-The Democrats DID win at the ballot box-it was the Republicans who used conservative judges to steal the White House!
Excuse me Richard, but you've had lapse in memory-The Democrats DID win at the ballot box-it was the Republicans who used conservative judges to steal the White House!
Given that Iraq was a hell, why the hell didn't CNN leave the country and then report what the regime was doing? The author may be 'burdened' by the horrors he saw, but I'd think he would be burdened, too, that he helped sustain and support those horrors through his own inaction. Sweet dreams, buddy.
Mr Jordan`s confession would be much easier to swollow if it weren`t for the thousands of times, when the opportunity to report objectively presented itself, everyone at CNN, to a man, failed. I would not fault Mr. Jordan for protecting his "family", the American people however know when a news report is slanted , and anti-american, and , could have been different , sadly that has not been tne case.
Texans freed themselves.
Pardon the truth, but actual ballot counts revealed Bush to be the winner in the original count, and all subsequent re-counts (including Gore's requested version), except a scenario proposed by Bush. The Supreme Court (which no reasonable person would say is a conservative court) merely ended ad infinitum re-counting of ballots. As long as people continue to distort truth to suit their own agendas, this country will not heal and move on. This applies to conservatives, liberals, civil libertarians, greens, and every other "group" out there with an opinion.
It is still amazing to me that there are people out there still whining about the florida vote of 2000! The end result of the whole ordeal has been concretely concluded. Three independent news agencies(fFox was NOT one of them) got the ballots from the three counties in question and did thier own count of hanging chads and found the results went to a majority for Bush. the sum is the votes for Florida went to Bush and NOT to Gore. Gore tried to have the votes of absentie ballots thrown out!(disinfranchisement) Gore was the first to go the Courts and force a recount! Bush Defended his interests and the interests of all people who chose to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rules for counting votes could not be changed midprocess and by different standards from county to county. They did not rule that Bush is to be President. It was a decision to protect the process of voting and the fairness to ALL people from that day and to the future. If florida had its Constitution in order none of of this would ever have been an issue. It might be smart of all of you out there who still think the election was "stolen" go read up on the US Constitution and learn about a thing called the Electoral College. It might help you understan our Rebublican form of limited Democracy.
The only thing I would like to add is this. People attack CNN for making a tough decision, how to continue to report activities in Iraq while maintaining the safety of those Iraqis who (risking themselves and their families) tried to help the reporters get as much out as possible.
There is no black and white solution to this issue.
Those who use this as a prime example of CNN's duplicity, liberal bias and ethis shortcomings forget an important point.
Over the years, the U.S. government has supported regimes that commit attrocities on their own people. The explanation often given is that, unfortunately, in order to further a greater good, certain comprimises must be made. The U.S. supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war because they saw Iraq as being less of a threat than an expanded Iran. The U.S. certainly knew of the deviant nature of Saddam and his regime. However, they had to make a decision. There are numerous Latin-American and African groups who the U.S. supported who were also commiting awful acts.
If someone is going to argue that there are only black and white decisions, that decisions with always guided by ethical absolutism, then they must apply them in all instances and hold all perpatrators accountable.
In this world it's not possible, and there is nothing the matter with that. We all wish to do the right thing, but sometimes it is only possible to do the best thing.
There is no black and white solution to this issue.
Those who use this as a prime example of CNN's duplicity, liberal bias and ethis shortcomings forget an important point.
Over the years, the U.S. government has supported regimes that commit attrocities on their own people. The explanation often given is that, unfortunately, in order to further a greater good, certain comprimises must be made. The U.S. supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war because they saw Iraq as being less of a threat than an expanded Iran. The U.S. certainly knew of the deviant nature of Saddam and his regime. However, they had to make a decision. There are numerous Latin-American and African groups who the U.S. supported who were also commiting awful acts.
If someone is going to argue that there are only black and white decisions, that decisions with always guided by ethical absolutism, then they must apply them in all instances and hold all perpatrators accountable.
In this world it's not possible, and there is nothing the matter with that. We all wish to do the right thing, but sometimes it is only possible to do the best thing.
It is still amazing to me that there are people out there still whining about the florida vote of 2000! The end result of the whole ordeal has been concretely concluded. Three independent news agencies(fFox was NOT one of them) got the ballots from the three counties in question and did thier own count of hanging chads and found the results went to a majority for Bush. the sum is the votes for Florida went to Bush and NOT to Gore. Gore tried to have the votes of absentie ballots thrown out!(disinfranchisement) Gore was the first to go the Courts and force a recount! Bush Defended his interests and the interests of all people who chose to vote. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the rules for counting votes could not be changed midprocess and by different standards from county to county. They did not rule that Bush is to be President. It was a decision to protect the process of voting and the fairness to ALL people from that day and to the future. If florida had its Constitution in order none of of this would ever have been an issue. It might be smart of all of you out there who still think the election was "stolen" go read up on the US Constitution and learn about a thing called the Electoral College. It might help you understan our Rebublican form of limited Democracy.
And Amanapour works for... CNN?
And she, of course, won't try to deflect attention from CNN's actions. Oh, no. That would be...
unprofessional.
And she, of course, won't try to deflect attention from CNN's actions. Oh, no. That would be...
unprofessional.
You guys at CNN are a joke. Even now after we liberated Iraq, you just can't bring yourselves to report anything positive about things there. You would think with what you witnessed and covered up that you would be more apt to support the Bush administration and our brave soldiers. That would go against your liberal mindset. No wonder Fox news has taken your place in the ratings. People are waking up and looking for an alternative not found in CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.
The most hilarious thing about the above comments are the ridiculous mudslinging between the two irrelevant parties we call Democrat and Repbulican. The conservative christian right, who lambast Islam as a "violent" religion, although it clearly states to "stand behind your Christian and Jewish brothers" fail to see that the problem in this article is, simply put, misinformation on the part of a leading News Organization. There is no consipracy by "liberals." If you took the time to see things clearly and do some personal research you would find that the "liberals" will never be organized enough in the US to ever follow through on a "conspiracy."
Back to the point. Yes, the people who criticized Bush for going to war may have rethought their opposition to a war if thad known more. However, they based their decisions on Bush's stupid spin-control and nonsense talk. WMDs? Yeah maybe they're there but probably not. Anyone who actually thinks critically without party blinders (both sides) can see that the Bush administration is lacking one important characteristic they seem to shout so freely: The Truth - corporate scandals, shady election practices (Katherine Harris anyone?), and now WMDs. I believe that Bush and his people do in fact have good intentions, however their own distrust in the American people is hurting them dearly.
Secondly, yes, the media is to blame as well in not providing any Truth. I do not want to point fingers to only one side. While the Bush's Truth problem stems from their lack of respect for the average American, the media's is simply "future revenue impact." Either way the two administrations, CNN and Bush, need to reevaluate their positions on truth. They have underestimated Americans' ability to think indepenently of the government and major news organizations, and suddenly when no one trusts either the Government or the Media, they wonder why.
Christine Amanpour may be doing some spin control of her own, but either way the truth is leaking out. Trust CNN if you want, but the only way one will ever get the bigger picture is by finding it out for themself - if you care enough to make a post on this website, then care enough to find out the Truth - it ain't that hard to find.
Back to the point. Yes, the people who criticized Bush for going to war may have rethought their opposition to a war if thad known more. However, they based their decisions on Bush's stupid spin-control and nonsense talk. WMDs? Yeah maybe they're there but probably not. Anyone who actually thinks critically without party blinders (both sides) can see that the Bush administration is lacking one important characteristic they seem to shout so freely: The Truth - corporate scandals, shady election practices (Katherine Harris anyone?), and now WMDs. I believe that Bush and his people do in fact have good intentions, however their own distrust in the American people is hurting them dearly.
Secondly, yes, the media is to blame as well in not providing any Truth. I do not want to point fingers to only one side. While the Bush's Truth problem stems from their lack of respect for the average American, the media's is simply "future revenue impact." Either way the two administrations, CNN and Bush, need to reevaluate their positions on truth. They have underestimated Americans' ability to think indepenently of the government and major news organizations, and suddenly when no one trusts either the Government or the Media, they wonder why.
Christine Amanpour may be doing some spin control of her own, but either way the truth is leaking out. Trust CNN if you want, but the only way one will ever get the bigger picture is by finding it out for themself - if you care enough to make a post on this website, then care enough to find out the Truth - it ain't that hard to find.
Can somebody please explain to me how USA supported Sadam for years as long as he was in war with Iran, among other things by giving him WMD to be used against Iran and pretending that massacres against Kurds do not happend, and when he tried to take KUWAIT oil he became enemy, beast, madman, etc.
About USA support to Taliban as long as they fight Soviets we can duscuss some other time but story won't be much different from Iraq.
The point is - you create your own enemies!
About USA support to Taliban as long as they fight Soviets we can duscuss some other time but story won't be much different from Iraq.
The point is - you create your own enemies!
I find it interesting that the article describes the atrocities of Saddam, but we're still having comments about how horrible the US is. While I agree that some US policies in history have been wrong (and we all know what they are, so instead of listing them, I'll grant that the reader has the knowledge), the US has also managed to do wonders for many countries that would otherwise be subject to starvation, disease, and any number of human spawned atrocities. I find it hard to believe that if the US is as bad as many say it is, there are still those hundreds of thousands, every year, who would risk their lives to come to her shores and live under her flag.
Hey Eason:
So NOW you feel guilt and remorse for your self-imposed censorship. I'm touched. You and Christiana Amanpour jumped on the same "we didn't want to lose access" bandwagon. CNN is only one of the major networks including NBC, CBS, and ABC that engage in their own (left-wing) bias on a daily basis. Having just recently returned from Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, you are a reminder why we avoided "embedded journalists" like the plague. While most of you were portraying Hussein as a "victim of American sanctions" he was busy slaughtering his people by the thousands, making oil deals with France, and laundering money to finance his palaces and Republican Guards. Thanks for admitting that CNN is a liar.
SFC Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY
Ft. Campbell , KY
So NOW you feel guilt and remorse for your self-imposed censorship. I'm touched. You and Christiana Amanpour jumped on the same "we didn't want to lose access" bandwagon. CNN is only one of the major networks including NBC, CBS, and ABC that engage in their own (left-wing) bias on a daily basis. Having just recently returned from Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, you are a reminder why we avoided "embedded journalists" like the plague. While most of you were portraying Hussein as a "victim of American sanctions" he was busy slaughtering his people by the thousands, making oil deals with France, and laundering money to finance his palaces and Republican Guards. Thanks for admitting that CNN is a liar.
SFC Cheryl McElroy
US ARMY
Ft. Campbell , KY
I find it interesting that the article describes the atrocities of Saddam, but we're still having comments about how horrible the US is. While I agree that some US policies in history have been wrong (and we all know what they are, so instead of listing them, I'll grant that the reader has the knowledge), the US has also managed to do wonders for many countries that would otherwise be subject to starvation, disease, and any number of human spawned atrocities. I find it hard to believe that if the US is as bad as many say it is, there are still those hundreds of thousands, every year, who would risk their lives to come to her shores and live under her flag.
This article is sickening if cnn knew this and had removed its contacts and gone to the international community "U.N." then perhaps lives could have been saved. Perhaps we wouln't have had a cowboy regime "The current administration" go in alone and alienate the rest of our allies. It should be shouted from the rooftops now and the U.N. should be challenged to get in there and cooperate with the U.S. now in rebuilding and bringing the thugs of the saddam regime to justice.
Stephen Snead
Stephen Snead
Nessie,
Your stupidity is showing. Your freedoms are also quite visible. Why don't you take a good, long look at them and remember why you have them.
Your stupidity is showing. Your freedoms are also quite visible. Why don't you take a good, long look at them and remember why you have them.
Please don't use the word "gotten". It is not a word.
Should be "have gotten."
"This article is sickening if cnn knew this and had removed its contacts and gone to the international community "U.N." then perhaps lives could have been saved."
Ah, I know! We could try... SANCTIONS!
Military force? "Oh, no - there's no reason to use force. We'll try sanctions for a decade or so, see what happens."
And in three months, it would have been essentially forgotten, and after a year the sanctions would expire.
The UN, much as we'd like it to be different, is a paper tiger. Long on rhetoric, short on results, and with no resources not committed by it's member nations. Think the League of Nations, with a new paint job.
Ah, I know! We could try... SANCTIONS!
Military force? "Oh, no - there's no reason to use force. We'll try sanctions for a decade or so, see what happens."
And in three months, it would have been essentially forgotten, and after a year the sanctions would expire.
The UN, much as we'd like it to be different, is a paper tiger. Long on rhetoric, short on results, and with no resources not committed by it's member nations. Think the League of Nations, with a new paint job.
This reminds me of the NY Times reporter that reported from USSR in the 30's telling us how well Stalin ran the nation. Sure, the reporter could not leave, he was on the payroll of USSR.
CNN= Criminal New Narcissists
Dear Mr. Eason:
Is your confession merely an apologia, or do you seek forgiveness? If your answer to the latter is affirmative, from which of your hapless victims do you seek it? The young Kuwaiti woman, perhaps?
By what process did you decide to warn the King of Jordan but not the Husseini brothers-in-law? Do you see yourself implicated in any way in these horrors?
Despite your justifications and your Erbil adventure, your article paints no profile in courage.
Is your confession merely an apologia, or do you seek forgiveness? If your answer to the latter is affirmative, from which of your hapless victims do you seek it? The young Kuwaiti woman, perhaps?
By what process did you decide to warn the King of Jordan but not the Husseini brothers-in-law? Do you see yourself implicated in any way in these horrors?
Despite your justifications and your Erbil adventure, your article paints no profile in courage.
It doesnt surprise me that the same outlets that accuse and point fingers at other media outlets for being foot soldiers of the Bush admin turnout to be guilty of the same. I think the un-biased media source is a thing of the past. As these outlets are purchased by big names with political clout it would only be expected that they be exposed for toting to one side or the other
What torrent of pent up knowledge concerning Iraqi atrocities has poured forth from the media? Other than this CNN confession I have seen nothing else. I read all about any American screw up but nothing much about tjhe interesting disciplinary practicies of the famil Hussein.
I do agree that the media is left wing regarding iraq, but what is more burdonsome is the lack of care that people put into current events to hold the media responsible.
look into the op ed pieces and see how many poeple oppose bush and the war on iraq, and carry out a rant about missing wmds or the lack of an AQ connection.
The media and op-eds rarely mentions ansar al-islam, one of the AQ connections [the other was the head of the euroupean AQ cell visiting baghdad, I forget his name], and the left wing bias is to say there was no connection. sad. Nor do they like to bring up iraq was funding the families of hamas who died in a suicidal jihad, or the T cells in the phillipines that are killing so many.
The findings of WMDs is mostly to make critics happy. If there are not any, is it the US fault or the intelligence of the UN who for years, up to sissy boy blix, said saddam held them, was hiding them, and restricted access to searches...in one surprise visit Iraq was in the process of moving it's goods at that site and forbade the UN team from inspecting the site. The information and delays to the UN in the past lead to operation desert fox, but i didn't hear the media complain other than minor allegations of internal cohesion stalling the initiations of the impeachment trials.
again i will repeat finding WMDs is only to make critics happy, the true danger was that iraq will share this technology with AQ. Which is easier, smuggling pre-made WMD into foreign countries, or visit a country and obtaining the raw ingrediants? smuggling was only an issue for nuclear weapons, and nukes are being tamed as radiation poisoning is now being treated with autologous bone marrow stem cell transplants. Iraq didn't have to give it's assets to AQ for AQ to be a serious threat, all they had to give them the skills. But the media is more into politics than reporting the truth.
Nor does the media like bring up some 200-300 missing scud missiles, 45 of which can carry chemical agents. or that dr ?bull? during the eighties developed a technique of putting the scud missiles together to form an al-hussain missile capable of reaching over 1000km. This Was the threat from Iraq to our euroupean allies. the threat Iraq posed directly to the US was the development of UAVs spraying biologics or chemicals.
But the left wing media and left wing democratic presidential cantidates may have to eat their words if David Kay releases his report later this month, where he is expected to make progress or even report finding some of Iraqs WMDs. inspecting millions of documents regarding WMDs, that iraq was supposed to submit, but never did, under resolution 1441...and the media and blix still tries to say iraq may have been or are in complaince. Sad.
look into the op ed pieces and see how many poeple oppose bush and the war on iraq, and carry out a rant about missing wmds or the lack of an AQ connection.
The media and op-eds rarely mentions ansar al-islam, one of the AQ connections [the other was the head of the euroupean AQ cell visiting baghdad, I forget his name], and the left wing bias is to say there was no connection. sad. Nor do they like to bring up iraq was funding the families of hamas who died in a suicidal jihad, or the T cells in the phillipines that are killing so many.
The findings of WMDs is mostly to make critics happy. If there are not any, is it the US fault or the intelligence of the UN who for years, up to sissy boy blix, said saddam held them, was hiding them, and restricted access to searches...in one surprise visit Iraq was in the process of moving it's goods at that site and forbade the UN team from inspecting the site. The information and delays to the UN in the past lead to operation desert fox, but i didn't hear the media complain other than minor allegations of internal cohesion stalling the initiations of the impeachment trials.
again i will repeat finding WMDs is only to make critics happy, the true danger was that iraq will share this technology with AQ. Which is easier, smuggling pre-made WMD into foreign countries, or visit a country and obtaining the raw ingrediants? smuggling was only an issue for nuclear weapons, and nukes are being tamed as radiation poisoning is now being treated with autologous bone marrow stem cell transplants. Iraq didn't have to give it's assets to AQ for AQ to be a serious threat, all they had to give them the skills. But the media is more into politics than reporting the truth.
Nor does the media like bring up some 200-300 missing scud missiles, 45 of which can carry chemical agents. or that dr ?bull? during the eighties developed a technique of putting the scud missiles together to form an al-hussain missile capable of reaching over 1000km. This Was the threat from Iraq to our euroupean allies. the threat Iraq posed directly to the US was the development of UAVs spraying biologics or chemicals.
But the left wing media and left wing democratic presidential cantidates may have to eat their words if David Kay releases his report later this month, where he is expected to make progress or even report finding some of Iraqs WMDs. inspecting millions of documents regarding WMDs, that iraq was supposed to submit, but never did, under resolution 1441...and the media and blix still tries to say iraq may have been or are in complaince. Sad.
You give the author of the post "nice to see everyone rationalizing" two options of YOUR choice, he is a liar or deluded.
I submit that the one that is deluded is you. What you suffer from is delusions of grandeur. Get over yourself.
I submit that the one that is deluded is you. What you suffer from is delusions of grandeur. Get over yourself.
What crap! Sure, people don't tell some company secrets just to save their jobs but this is a little bit different, don't you think? Eason should have put his own job on the line to save lives. I don't care to hear his sob story now. How many people have died because of this inaction? Had he and all the other news people told it all when it happened, maybe it would have come out during an administration that might have handled things without destroying another country. As bad as CNN is, can we all imagine how much worse Bush's mouthpiece -- Fox -- is? Sickening.
Sue you are a bonehead. the administration that you no doubt wished to handle this was the clinton variety and it was well on the way of destroying a country, ours. CNN is an abomination of reporting and misleading stories. the fact that they are even still credited is due to persons such as yourself who have not cared to look outside of their own self perceived pitiful lives or for that matter the hole they have stuffed their heads in.
Sue you are a bonehead. the administration that you no doubt wished to handle this was the clinton variety and it was well on the way of destroying a country, ours. CNN is an abomination of reporting and misleading stories. the fact that they are even still credited is due to persons such as yourself who have not cared to look outside of their own self perceived pitiful lives or for that matter the hole they have stuffed their heads in.
As "Me" asserts, and the correspondent below relates, I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". The truth is, the U.S. supplied a meager amount of arms to Iraq. During the same period the U.S. sold more arms to Iran.
Letter from the Times (UK) Online, March 14, 2003
Sir, I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". Thankfully A. H. Cordesman, in his 1998 report on the Iraqi military for the Center for Strategic & International Studies,(http://www.csis.org/index.htm) has enlightened me.
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.
I remain your obedient servant, Professor Andrew Hamilton, Dermatology Laboratory, Thomas Guy House, Guy's Hospital, St Thomas' Street, SE1 9RT. <end quote>
So during the period leading up the first Gulf War, including the entire period of the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. sold to Iraq:
1.515% as much as the UK
.503% as much as German
.0909% as much as the Chicoms
.05411% as much as the French (Which explains the attack on the U.S.S. Stark using a French missile)
.00157% as much as the U.S.S.R. (Which explains all the burning T55 & T72 tanks)
Thus the assertion that "we armed Saddam" is, on the face of it, blatantly false, and partisan propaganda. Iraq bought weapons on the world market, and the U.S. turned down the vast majority of Iraq's weapons purchase requests. We stayed barely cordial on a diplomatic level during these years. We have strategic interests in the region, and multiple administrations of both parties (but a congress controlled by the Democratic party throughout the period), all thought it worthwhile to maintain the minimal relationship between the countries.
Differences of opinion are all very well and good, but uninformed, wrong opinion should not control policy (IMNSHO). -- Greg Hemsath
Letter from the Times (UK) Online, March 14, 2003
Sir, I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". Thankfully A. H. Cordesman, in his 1998 report on the Iraqi military for the Center for Strategic & International Studies,(http://www.csis.org/index.htm) has enlightened me.
In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia.
I remain your obedient servant, Professor Andrew Hamilton, Dermatology Laboratory, Thomas Guy House, Guy's Hospital, St Thomas' Street, SE1 9RT. <end quote>
So during the period leading up the first Gulf War, including the entire period of the Iran/Iraq war, the U.S. sold to Iraq:
1.515% as much as the UK
.503% as much as German
.0909% as much as the Chicoms
.05411% as much as the French (Which explains the attack on the U.S.S. Stark using a French missile)
.00157% as much as the U.S.S.R. (Which explains all the burning T55 & T72 tanks)
Thus the assertion that "we armed Saddam" is, on the face of it, blatantly false, and partisan propaganda. Iraq bought weapons on the world market, and the U.S. turned down the vast majority of Iraq's weapons purchase requests. We stayed barely cordial on a diplomatic level during these years. We have strategic interests in the region, and multiple administrations of both parties (but a congress controlled by the Democratic party throughout the period), all thought it worthwhile to maintain the minimal relationship between the countries.
Differences of opinion are all very well and good, but uninformed, wrong opinion should not control policy (IMNSHO). -- Greg Hemsath
What the hell??? The man has been out of office for three years GET OVER IT! If you want to point fingers at the executive branch for our current calamity how about the current administration that took the entire month of August off prior to the worst terrorist attack in history? That seems like a slightly more sane place to start pointing fingers. But don't point the fingers towards D.C. point them towards Crawford at least that way you might be pointing in the right direction. Time to wake up to the new century we are living in. Bubba checked out quite a while ago.
Excellent comments Greg. Let the truth be known.
Sue, go back to school. Not a public school. You are already a victim of the public school system. No need to futher your ignorance. I feel your pain.
Sue, go back to school. Not a public school. You are already a victim of the public school system. No need to futher your ignorance. I feel your pain.
Sorry JD, YOU are on the wrong side of history. Bubba had quite a HUGE piece to play in all the mess in the middle east we are having to clean up now. And as we all know, the pace of the Federal Govt is a snails pace. So what we are having to deal with now is a direct result of the apathy of the Clinton administration and much of the good things that were going on durring the Clinon administration were set up and lead by the first George Bush. As far as Bubba checking out, give me break that BUBBA gets his face in front of the camera as often as he can, he hasn't gone away he is like the little, obnoxious, dorky neighbor that kept finding us despite how hard we tried to run away, who couldn't realize we wanted nothing to do with him.
For more information:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/thinki...
>We have never been conquerers over any nation in order claim anything but freedom for the residents.
Tell that to the American Indians.
Tell that to the American Indians.
I have trouble understanding why it is that you were trying to ensure that CNN remained over there if all you were doing was covering up the truth. Actually it makes sense, because it seems that CNN will cover the truth of anything to protect the ideas of the leftist dumb shits that they support.
CNN and all its employees must share in the death and torture of thousands of innocent people by their decisions to keep their mouths shut regarding the state of affairs in Iraq.
There are very few words to express our outrage for CNN and all its enviorns that have betrayed the Worlds civilized society much the same conduct as those Bishops that covered up the homosexual rapes and attacks by 1 1/2% of the Catholic Priest in the US.
CNN should be desolved lock-stock-&-barrel, its employees and managers should be charged with the same crimes that the Hussaine is charged with as a partner on the second part of these crimes.
There are very few words to express our outrage for CNN and all its enviorns that have betrayed the Worlds civilized society much the same conduct as those Bishops that covered up the homosexual rapes and attacks by 1 1/2% of the Catholic Priest in the US.
CNN should be desolved lock-stock-&-barrel, its employees and managers should be charged with the same crimes that the Hussaine is charged with as a partner on the second part of these crimes.
Remember Mexico, the country America stole the best third of?
We're coming to get it back.
We're coming to get it back.
Remember Mexico, We're coming to get it back.
you wouldn't know what to do with it if you did
you cant run what you have now...
you wouldn't know what to do with it if you did
you cant run what you have now...
This is the problem with the goddamn internet, I waste my time arguing with a bunch of idiots instead of doing something productive... But here goes...
I mildly agree with the rightwing freaks that CNN should have reported what they witnessed (even if they had to pull out to do it).
What I don't get is how them not doing that is somehow a liberal apologia to Saddam.
As a real liberal myself, the idea that CNN is a great left-leaning bastion of thought is stomach-turning. Actually, real liberals didn't need CNN to tell us that Saddam was a shitty guy and that US/UN sanctions were partly responsible for helping Saddam oppress the people of Iraq, because the liberal news media were the only ones reporting it. It lined the pages, websites and airwaves of the Nation, Salon, Democracy Now, etc. for years. We have been talking about it for a decade. The question is where have you all been. (Something tells me most of you aren't up to date on the current regimes that are committing such atrocities with our complicity -that we may later condemn or even attack? But don't worry-once the US gets fed up with them, you can pretend to care.) No- It wasn't until Bush needed justification for war, that CNN, CBS, ABC and the inimitable FOX found such atrocities at all newsworthy.
Maybe we are watching a different CNN, but in the segments that I caught (incidentally, I watch FOX and simply inverse the reporting for my news), I witnessed the same old cavalcade of retired generals, really "cool" military graphics (for all you geeky war freaks who still can't get any ladies), embedded reporters talking to our boys in the field, and the false-dichotomy of Anti-war versus pro-troops rallies (under the myopic assumption that they two are mutually exclusive). But I guess you watch CNN and see a bunch of tambourine carrying hippies singing Kumbaya and calling for the destruction of the WTO.
I don't want to argue too much about the liberal versus conservative bias on the news, but I will say that most conservatives have no idea who are our liberal spokespeople, but I can assure they Amanpour is far from one of them. The day that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are equaled in national airtime by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy- then we might have something to talk about.
But the real issue is coercion of the media and its deplorable impact on the public's right to know the truth. Saddam, however, was certainly not alone in tactics to intimidate the media. For some reason, even the Crazy-Clinton-Communist-Drug-using-Gad-hating-Liberal (does that about cover it?) CNN did not seem to be concerned about the US attacks on the international media. The dead international newsmen and women at Al Jazeera (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) or in the Palestine hotel would probably have preferred Saddam's torture to the U.S's "smart" bombs (smart enough to bomb the shit out of anyone reporting negative aspects of the war).
Now to deal with a few of you geniuses individually:
Ben: "All Democrats are evil, hate-filled, racist pigs."
What can you say about Ben? Brilliant! Your inability to recognize irony is adorable. Your like a little child with spittle on your chin, but talking politics in the stead of shitting yourself.
SFC MAC: "CNN- Communist News Network"
And yet you think CNN did not want to report the atrocities because they did not want to lose their inside scoop, because they are a big greedy money-grubbing liberal company. Your talents are being wasted, you should become an Economist immediately as you obviously have some sort of knack for it.
Cameron: "the news of this is not at all surprising to me, I've know since '91 when I was only 9 years old that saddam was an evil tyrant that needed to be killed. My only hope is that the release of your knowledge of these events will help to persuade the liberal "do-gooder" left to open their eyes."
Here's our buddy Cameron missing the point as I imagine he always has. I doubt you will find one person in the U.S. who did not know that Saddam was a sadistic tyrant- we all knew. In fact, we knew even when you were a little pissed-off, bigot-to-be 9 year old kid. Back then we wished Don Rumsfeld would have refused to go hobnob with Saddam when he was gassing openly Kurds, we wished Bush (I) would have found Saddam more despicable than he happen to at the time, the real extreme of us even wished that America had not help the baath party rise to power in the first place- but for some reason Reagan and Bush I just didn't seem to care. Maybe the big "commies" at CNN had forgotten to let them know. You see, opposition to the war came not from a disbelief that Saddam committed atrocities, but rather from the knowledge that the U.S. cared so little about those atrocities (and would probably just substitute them with different atrocities, such as "shock and awe") Oh wonderful "shock and awe" on a country's largest urban population- its such a beautiful and wonderful act-exactly what a liberation should feel like. Maybe we can "torment and scare-the-shit-out-of-them" as a sweet international X-mas present. You can be naive if you want to, but don't blame those who refuse to be.
Greg: "I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". .......During the same period the U.S. sold more arms to Iran."
Great point Greg! I take it you will be thoroughly disgusted with the federal government when they start reporting about the atrocities by the Iranian authorities. I can just imagine you calling Bush and Raegan supporters of terrorism. Or will you conveniently find some totalitarian regime we sold more weapons to than Iran? It sounds like a fun never-ending game of "moral relativism". Good times.
I mildly agree with the rightwing freaks that CNN should have reported what they witnessed (even if they had to pull out to do it).
What I don't get is how them not doing that is somehow a liberal apologia to Saddam.
As a real liberal myself, the idea that CNN is a great left-leaning bastion of thought is stomach-turning. Actually, real liberals didn't need CNN to tell us that Saddam was a shitty guy and that US/UN sanctions were partly responsible for helping Saddam oppress the people of Iraq, because the liberal news media were the only ones reporting it. It lined the pages, websites and airwaves of the Nation, Salon, Democracy Now, etc. for years. We have been talking about it for a decade. The question is where have you all been. (Something tells me most of you aren't up to date on the current regimes that are committing such atrocities with our complicity -that we may later condemn or even attack? But don't worry-once the US gets fed up with them, you can pretend to care.) No- It wasn't until Bush needed justification for war, that CNN, CBS, ABC and the inimitable FOX found such atrocities at all newsworthy.
Maybe we are watching a different CNN, but in the segments that I caught (incidentally, I watch FOX and simply inverse the reporting for my news), I witnessed the same old cavalcade of retired generals, really "cool" military graphics (for all you geeky war freaks who still can't get any ladies), embedded reporters talking to our boys in the field, and the false-dichotomy of Anti-war versus pro-troops rallies (under the myopic assumption that they two are mutually exclusive). But I guess you watch CNN and see a bunch of tambourine carrying hippies singing Kumbaya and calling for the destruction of the WTO.
I don't want to argue too much about the liberal versus conservative bias on the news, but I will say that most conservatives have no idea who are our liberal spokespeople, but I can assure they Amanpour is far from one of them. The day that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are equaled in national airtime by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy- then we might have something to talk about.
But the real issue is coercion of the media and its deplorable impact on the public's right to know the truth. Saddam, however, was certainly not alone in tactics to intimidate the media. For some reason, even the Crazy-Clinton-Communist-Drug-using-Gad-hating-Liberal (does that about cover it?) CNN did not seem to be concerned about the US attacks on the international media. The dead international newsmen and women at Al Jazeera (in both Iraq and Afghanistan) or in the Palestine hotel would probably have preferred Saddam's torture to the U.S's "smart" bombs (smart enough to bomb the shit out of anyone reporting negative aspects of the war).
Now to deal with a few of you geniuses individually:
Ben: "All Democrats are evil, hate-filled, racist pigs."
What can you say about Ben? Brilliant! Your inability to recognize irony is adorable. Your like a little child with spittle on your chin, but talking politics in the stead of shitting yourself.
SFC MAC: "CNN- Communist News Network"
And yet you think CNN did not want to report the atrocities because they did not want to lose their inside scoop, because they are a big greedy money-grubbing liberal company. Your talents are being wasted, you should become an Economist immediately as you obviously have some sort of knack for it.
Cameron: "the news of this is not at all surprising to me, I've know since '91 when I was only 9 years old that saddam was an evil tyrant that needed to be killed. My only hope is that the release of your knowledge of these events will help to persuade the liberal "do-gooder" left to open their eyes."
Here's our buddy Cameron missing the point as I imagine he always has. I doubt you will find one person in the U.S. who did not know that Saddam was a sadistic tyrant- we all knew. In fact, we knew even when you were a little pissed-off, bigot-to-be 9 year old kid. Back then we wished Don Rumsfeld would have refused to go hobnob with Saddam when he was gassing openly Kurds, we wished Bush (I) would have found Saddam more despicable than he happen to at the time, the real extreme of us even wished that America had not help the baath party rise to power in the first place- but for some reason Reagan and Bush I just didn't seem to care. Maybe the big "commies" at CNN had forgotten to let them know. You see, opposition to the war came not from a disbelief that Saddam committed atrocities, but rather from the knowledge that the U.S. cared so little about those atrocities (and would probably just substitute them with different atrocities, such as "shock and awe") Oh wonderful "shock and awe" on a country's largest urban population- its such a beautiful and wonderful act-exactly what a liberation should feel like. Maybe we can "torment and scare-the-shit-out-of-them" as a sweet international X-mas present. You can be naive if you want to, but don't blame those who refuse to be.
Greg: "I have often heard the claim that "we armed Saddam". .......During the same period the U.S. sold more arms to Iran."
Great point Greg! I take it you will be thoroughly disgusted with the federal government when they start reporting about the atrocities by the Iranian authorities. I can just imagine you calling Bush and Raegan supporters of terrorism. Or will you conveniently find some totalitarian regime we sold more weapons to than Iran? It sounds like a fun never-ending game of "moral relativism". Good times.
I dont think I have ever heard of a reporter being drafted and forced to go overseas, or a warzone.
Seems to me thats their own choice.
As far as Respect? That has to be earned and any shred of credulity CNN might have had, went ot the window with this poor me confession "Mr Easton" decided to share with us. What about the poor them in Iraq? What about the Poor Brothers in law who are now dead? What about the mass graves? The gassed Kurds? Please save your pity and respect for some one who deservesit.
Seems to me thats their own choice.
As far as Respect? That has to be earned and any shred of credulity CNN might have had, went ot the window with this poor me confession "Mr Easton" decided to share with us. What about the poor them in Iraq? What about the Poor Brothers in law who are now dead? What about the mass graves? The gassed Kurds? Please save your pity and respect for some one who deservesit.
Heres a little tast of how horrible Us Americans are.
This was written in 1973. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Have we helped more than harmed? Yes. Do we ask anything in return, not much. This will make you think.
The Americans
Gordon Sinclair
Radio Station CFBR 1010
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"LET'S BE PERSONAL"
Broadcast June 5, 1973
CFRB, Toronto, Ontario
Topic: "The Americans"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.
They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.
The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.
Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.
When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.
This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL SCRIPT
COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD.
(c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR
PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN)
A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC.
578 HYMUS BOULEVARD
POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC,
CANADA, H9R 4T2
This was written in 1973. Do we make mistakes? Yes. Have we helped more than harmed? Yes. Do we ask anything in return, not much. This will make you think.
The Americans
Gordon Sinclair
Radio Station CFBR 1010
2 St. Clair Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
"LET'S BE PERSONAL"
Broadcast June 5, 1973
CFRB, Toronto, Ontario
Topic: "The Americans"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.
As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.
They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.
When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.
When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.
The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.
I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.
Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?
You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.
When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.
Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.
Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.
I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.
This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL SCRIPT
COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD.
(c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR
PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN)
A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC.
578 HYMUS BOULEVARD
POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC,
CANADA, H9R 4T2
Rgis guy has a lot of gall to call anyone else smug and self-righteous.
you pro Bush so-called Right wingers slinging Nuffins at Left wingers ... do so because you seemingly can not think and do not care.
The Issue is not about right/left, it is about Manipulating Liars so-called leading US.
Bush is Not right/conservative ... just ask Rush
what are you people arguing about here?
what I would like is a full investigation into 911 ... and also impeachment of Bush and entourage for lying about Irag ... regardless of who was being tortured there ... if you people are such profound ignorant liars that you can not follow sequence of order in protocol and words & 'Reasons' being USED for Private Agenda sold as something else ... why do you consider yourself any less LIARS than those LYING in office of The Unitited States?
What is there to say to any of you Liars that go on and on making this some complex issue.
Saddam did not do 911, or have any connection to it.
YOUR Bill of Rights is being tortured, raped, & murdered.
do you not have any sense what America is/supposed to be?
Let me tell you children ... that America is not about destroying Sovereignty ... Until you unthinking, selfish, idiot blabber mouths started running cover for unelected lying criminals occupying Our White House.
My bluntness comes from my profound love for America.
The Issue is not about right/left, it is about Manipulating Liars so-called leading US.
Bush is Not right/conservative ... just ask Rush
what are you people arguing about here?
what I would like is a full investigation into 911 ... and also impeachment of Bush and entourage for lying about Irag ... regardless of who was being tortured there ... if you people are such profound ignorant liars that you can not follow sequence of order in protocol and words & 'Reasons' being USED for Private Agenda sold as something else ... why do you consider yourself any less LIARS than those LYING in office of The Unitited States?
What is there to say to any of you Liars that go on and on making this some complex issue.
Saddam did not do 911, or have any connection to it.
YOUR Bill of Rights is being tortured, raped, & murdered.
do you not have any sense what America is/supposed to be?
Let me tell you children ... that America is not about destroying Sovereignty ... Until you unthinking, selfish, idiot blabber mouths started running cover for unelected lying criminals occupying Our White House.
My bluntness comes from my profound love for America.
Ms. Rehgraf, I'm not discounting anything that happens in Iraq, and I mean ANYTHING. But once again, the issue Ms. Amanpour raised is how the U.S. Corporate Media misled us, here in America, not in Iraq.
According to Ms. Amanpour, "the press muzzled itself during the Gulf war" and "CNN 'was intimidated' by the Bush administration and Fox News, which 'put a climate of fear and self-censorship'" [over CNN.]
She is taking about what is done by U.S. media. The stories distract attention to media abuses, real or imagined, in other countries. Undoubtedly they exist, but I live here, and it's the disinformation produced by our so-called free press that is more troubling.
You don't believe it? I didn't either -- but check this out:
<a href="http://www.thespiritof76.com/NEX_NEWS/NF_BIGGE.HTM#Media'sRole"> The BIGGEST ONE: Media's Role
Health, happiness & long life,
L. Reichard White
According to Ms. Amanpour, "the press muzzled itself during the Gulf war" and "CNN 'was intimidated' by the Bush administration and Fox News, which 'put a climate of fear and self-censorship'" [over CNN.]
She is taking about what is done by U.S. media. The stories distract attention to media abuses, real or imagined, in other countries. Undoubtedly they exist, but I live here, and it's the disinformation produced by our so-called free press that is more troubling.
You don't believe it? I didn't either -- but check this out:
<a href="http://www.thespiritof76.com/NEX_NEWS/NF_BIGGE.HTM#Media'sRole"> The BIGGEST ONE: Media's Role
Health, happiness & long life,
L. Reichard White
Long live justice! Those who protect the mass graves and torture rooms need themselves to experience such agony and misery.
Mr. White, you apparently missed the best part of that article:
"Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: 'Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.'
CNN had no comment."
The last line says it all...
"Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: 'Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda.'
CNN had no comment."
The last line says it all...
you had to make a really tough call:fulfil your duty as a reporter and get people and their families killed or stay quiet. i think that you did what you thought was best and i'd probably do the same thing too after hearing about that kuwaiti woman.
Then it was Saddam. Now it's Uncle Sam. Same shit, different pile.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network