DISQUS

squeakrat · 1 year ago

I wish we had more of this kind of media record-keeping. I'm tired of these high-profile hacks who get to present themselves as disembodied, pastless, recordless, unaccountable "experts." People like this should have their past howlers stapled to their foreheads forever.

Bah Bah Black Sheeple · 3 months ago

Where was Mr Ackerman's expose when it could have helped- and would have been risky to say it? Now, many years AFTER the lie is fully known, documented elsewhere in hundreds of places and the damage done... Where was he before the war got to be such a failure? Now it is popular to decry the liars- NOW Ackerman and his ilk show up to swoop up credit for being journos with integrity who are calling his own kind to task?

He is as much a fraud/opportunist as they are. Grotesque, as he also did so by plagiarizing most of his facts from internet scoops who had it all out there when it WAS risky. Now I suppose he'll get a Pukitzer for his intrepid 'bravery'.

golestan · 1 year ago

It seems that the article needs to be updated: http://www.slate.com/id/2186954/.
Specifcally, Goldberg writes about the terrorism connection:

"I believed that Saddam was a supporter of terrorism. The report on Saddam's terrorist ties released last week by the Joint Forces Command confirms this (not that you would know it from the scant press coverage of the study). The study, citing captured Iraqi documents, indicates that Saddam's regime supported various jihadist groups, including Ayman al-Zawahiri's, and including Kurdish Islamist groups, about whom I have reported. But read the study for yourself; it's actually quite an achievement of translation and analysis."

spencer_ackerman · 1 year ago

That it does. Jeff Goldberg Representing Universal Love Eternally's Slate piece went up as my piece was going through edits, and I didn't see it until late last night. I'm blogging it now. As I read it I thought of that Fugazi song, "Latest Disgrace."

jrarris · 1 year ago

Excellent, excellent work. It takes courage to reveal the mendacity of those in your own profession (just ask any cop) particularly in the insular world of journalism. I know, I used to be a reporter, and watched in alarm as the little American flags began to spring up all around my newsroom in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. I also remember reading the AP wire, the LA Times, The NY Times, and The Post every day and being astounded that a single quote from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, or Powell would often serve as the front page headline ("Saddam a Grave Threat," etc) and that the article under that headline would quote ONLY administration sources with no dissenting voices allowed. It was like reading Pravda. Day after day after day.

The reporters responsible for selling this war have never had to pay any kind of professional price for their horrendous misconduct. The fact that Mr. Ackerman is willing to shine a light on some of their misdeeds, warms my heart.

drip · 1 year ago

The conflation of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons into the "WMD" category is another example of the intentional disinformation that hayes and Goldberg used to reach their erroneous conclusions. The world was certain (wrong, it turns out, but certain) that Saddam had chemical weapons. The world was certain because the US gave him the weapons and watched as he used them with our blessing on Iranians. By claiming that Saddam had WMD rather than nuclear weapons, the administration could claim the threat of WMD was known by "everyone" and if there were no nuclear weapons found, well, they were still truthful in that there were chemical weapons. Except there weren't and the lie is revealed. No one in the newspapers I read at the time made mention of any of this, there was just the constant regurgitation of the administrations claims without any evaluation of their plausibility.

Great work on this, please stay with it. And turn "Latest Disgrace" up to 11.

jayb · 1 year ago

This is from a Slate article from 2002 during the rush to war. Johnathan Schwartz had cited this on his Tiny Revolution site in October of 2007:

There is not sufficient space...for me to refute some of the arguments made in Slate over the past week against intervention, arguments made, I have noticed, by people with limited experience in the Middle East (Their lack of experience causes them to reach the naive conclusion that an invasion of Iraq will cause America to be loathed in the Middle East, rather than respected)... gotta love that last part. It should be put on his gravestone
The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

--- Jeffrey Goldberg

It's hard to not get extraordinarily enraged at this. The condescension toward anti-war critics. The catastrophic wrongness. The smug assumptions.

The amount of things he got wrong in two paragraphs is staggering. And now, nearly six years after he wrote this, he offers a tepid, "who could have guessed" mea culpa in Slate. Nice work Spencer.

stallard · 1 year ago

Wow.

I remember reading this New Yorker piece, and being quite impressed by it. Up til then I hadn't taken the idea of a Saddam/Al Qaeda link very seriously, but afterward, I felt I had to reevaluate that position. I took the piece at face value - it seemed so authoritative and so full of inside knowledge.

Yes, journalists and pundits simply must have their track records advertised, and their failures criticized. If you present yourself as an expert that people should take seriously when they form their own opinions, then it is only right that they take your past performance.

nellre · 1 year ago

I wonder though, that perhaps the only people who read this stuff are other pundits.

Americans have become remarkably lazy thinkers. If it can't be said in 30 seconds their eyes glaze over.

jooripgwarhhee · 1 year ago

You make a strong case as usually except for one point. While it is true that many Iraqis had died cause of US actions one can also make a strong case that taking down Saddam saved lives. Saddam intended to kill off the Kurds , re-invade Kuwait and use nuclear weapons against Israel if he ever had the chance

If Saddam had gotten free it is very likely that he would have killed more than the were killed by US actions. There are very good arguments against the war , but the moral argument isn't one of them.

carleys · 1 year ago

this has all been documented for years on the internet, and you missed some of the most important perpetrators...

World Press Freedom Day in the Eyes & Ears of the Beholder

by Trish Schuh May 29, 2007

Arab American News



UNITED NATIONS- On the annual World Press Freedom Day in May, UNESCO hosted an event for journalists called "Press Freedom, Safety of Journalists and Impunity." Under Article 1 of its Constitution, UNESCO is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to defend freedom of expression and press freedom.



United Nations Correspondent Association President Tuyet J. Nguyen spoke about the life-threatening danger faced by journalists covering such war zones as Rwanda and Iraq where the media is controlled by special interests or armed political parties.



Mr. Georges Malbrunot of France's neocon Le Figaro spoke of newsgathering under various "vicious surveillance" states- all Arab- and starting with Syria. In contrast, Malbrunot's embedding with American forces in Iraq was "not a bad solution", but opened embeddees to paranoid Arab charges of being "a spy...Its one of the major blames addressed to the foreign press today... Of course this blame is 99.9% wrong, but in the minds of these people who suffer from "conspiracy theory" this accusation is serious" and can cost a journalist his life. "There is alot of work to do to convince these groups that the journalist is not a spy." Malbrunot added that it is the work of Muslim Imams, scholars, leaders etc to persuade their Muslim flock of this fact... "Only then will the fate of the global war against terror be dramatically changed."



This writer asked the panel if journalists themselves could ever be partly responsible for such suspicions? Citing CNN's Anderson Cooper, who admitted spending his earlier summers working for the CIA: "Doesn't this kind of moonlighting put other journalists at risk?"



No response from the panel.



Representing half a million media professionals around the world on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists was Judith Matloff, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and a member of the International News Safety Institute. Professor Matloff implored the international community to uphold UN Security Council Resolution 1738 which prohibits the killing and targeting of media, and protects free speech and freedom of the press globally.



In a followup conversation by telephone on May 25, I asked Prof Matloff for her opinion on how UNSCR 1738 applies to Lebanon's Al Manar TV and the LMG communications network- Lebanese media outlets bombed by Israel during the 2006 war, and officially censored as a "terrorist organization" by the US Congress? Regarding this unprecedented, landmark free speech/censorship law- Ivy League academic Matloff said she was "unfamiliar with these situations" and refused to comment on "Middle East issues. "I am an Africa specialist".



But wasn't free speech protected equally around the world under Res 1738? In the Middle East, as well as in Africa? Being a media expert, could she comment on what a law equating the media with "terrorism" could mean for freedom of the press? Concurrent with the repeated bombing of Al Jazeera in Afghanistan and Iraq?

"I never heard of that," Matloff said.



With her credentials- shouldn't she have been familiar with such momentous "situations"?



Or perhaps she could assess how the MSM's advocacy of falsehoods promoted an illegal war in Iraq? "The New York Times has apologized," she said, referring to a full page 'mea culpa ad'. But isn't the NYT repeating the same misleading tactics to promote a next war in Iran?



With this and similar questions, Matloff responded like a true press "pro": avoiding ethical implications, defending her product- the status quo, and referring most opinons to "other supervisors" or experts. Her refrain of "I don't know", "don't remember", "can't comment" captured the essence of a White House Press Briefing.



As a trainer of America's next generation of government "privatized propaganda contractors," (tomorrow's 'Mercenary Press') Matloff diverted the subject, passed the buck, and expertly earned her tenure...



On Press Freedom Day I spoke briefly to New York Times correspondent Warren Hoge about the media, Iraq and World Press Freedom Day.



Q: Its World Press Freedom Day and I just wanted to ask if you have any comments about The New York Times and their reporting in the runup to the Iraq War, and if you feel any kind of responsibility?

A: I can't talk about that- we've already said everything about that to be said in the paper, and I really don't want to add to it. I mean, The New York Times- more than most newspapers- has absolutely admitted what we thought was faulty and what was not. There's just nothing I can add to that at all. And I certainly don't want to talk about that on

Press Freedom Day when our thoughts are with Alan Johnston and other journalists that are being killed.

Q: Well my thoughts are also with the Iraqis. There are half a million dead- thanks in part to

your newspaper-

A: Oh come on.

Q: Your newspaper was one of the primary advocates for the war-

A: Oh come on, I can't talk to you-

Q: Your newspaper was primary- yes it was- Judith Miller got a security clearance from Donald Rumsfeld, sir-

A: The New York Times is not responsible for any dead Iraqis. I won't listen to that-

Q: None of the other American journalists but Judith Miller from your paper got a security

clearance from the US Defense Secretary himself. How is this different from working for the government?

A: You are are defiling Press Freedom Day- Shut up! This is about Press Freedom, this is not about defiling the Press. We've just come back from a demonstration for Alan Johnston for journalists being killed and that's what this day is about- Press Freedom.



Perhaps BBC World News Editor Jon Williams best summarized the outcome of "shutting up" journalists: "We must not stand by and allow the intimidation of journalists- wherever it happens. If we do, we will pay a heavy price... There will be no eyes or ears telling us what's going on. We won't have the insight from those able to make sense of it."



But then, that may be just how the Powers That Be really want it.

carleys · 1 year ago

Remember the whole crew! NYT, WaPo etc

World Press Freedom Day in the Eyes & Ears of the Beholder

by Trish Schuh May 29, 2007

Arab American News



UNITED NATIONS- On the annual World Press Freedom Day in May, UNESCO hosted an event for journalists called "Press Freedom, Safety of Journalists and Impunity." Under Article 1 of its Constitution, UNESCO is the only United Nations agency with a mandate to defend freedom of expression and press freedom.



United Nations Correspondent Association President Tuyet J. Nguyen spoke about the life-threatening danger faced by journalists covering such war zones as Rwanda and Iraq where the media is controlled by special interests or armed political parties.



Mr. Georges Malbrunot of France's neocon Le Figaro spoke of newsgathering under various "vicious surveillance" states- all Arab- and starting with Syria. In contrast, Malbrunot's embedding with American forces in Iraq was "not a bad solution", but opened embeddees to paranoid Arab charges of being "a spy...Its one of the major blames addressed to the foreign press today... Of course this blame is 99.9% wrong, but in the minds of these people who suffer from "conspiracy theory" this accusation is serious" and can cost a journalist his life. "There is alot of work to do to convince these groups that the journalist is not a spy." Malbrunot added that it is the work of Muslim Imams, scholars, leaders etc to persuade their Muslim flock of this fact... "Only then will the fate of the global war against terror be dramatically changed."



This writer asked the panel if journalists themselves could ever be partly responsible for such suspicions? Citing CNN's Anderson Cooper, who admitted spending his earlier summers working for the CIA: "Doesn't this kind of moonlighting put other journalists at risk?"



No response from the panel.



Representing half a million media professionals around the world on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists was Judith Matloff, a Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and a member of the International News Safety Institute. Professor Matloff implored the international community to uphold UN Security Council Resolution 1738 which prohibits the killing and targeting of media, and protects free speech and freedom of the press globally.



In a followup conversation by telephone on May 25, I asked Prof Matloff for her opinion on how UNSCR 1738 applies to Lebanon's Al Manar TV and the LMG communications network- Lebanese media outlets bombed by Israel during the 2006 war, and officially censored as a "terrorist organization" by the US Congress? Regarding this unprecedented, landmark free speech/censorship law- Ivy League academic Matloff said she was "unfamiliar with these situations" and refused to comment on "Middle East issues. "I am an Africa specialist".



But wasn't free speech protected equally around the world under Res 1738? In the Middle East, as well as in Africa? Being a media expert, could she comment on what a law equating the media with "terrorism" could mean for freedom of the press? Concurrent with the repeated bombing of Al Jazeera in Afghanistan and Iraq?

"I never heard of that," Matloff said.



With her credentials- shouldn't she have been familiar with such momentous "situations"?



Or perhaps she could assess how the MSM's advocacy of falsehoods promoted an illegal war in Iraq? "The New York Times has apologized," she said, referring to a full page 'mea culpa ad'. But isn't the NYT repeating the same misleading tactics to promote a next war in Iran?



With this and similar questions, Matloff responded like a true press "pro": avoiding ethical implications, defending her product- the status quo, and referring most opinons to "other supervisors" or experts. Her refrain of "I don't know", "don't remember", "can't comment" captured the essence of a White House Press Briefing.



As a trainer of America's next generation of government "privatized propaganda contractors," (tomorrow's 'Mercenary Press') Matloff diverted the subject, passed the buck, and expertly earned her tenure...



On Press Freedom Day I spoke briefly to New York Times correspondent Warren Hoge about the media, Iraq and World Press Freedom Day.



Q: Its World Press Freedom Day and I just wanted to ask if you have any comments about The New York Times and their reporting in the runup to the Iraq War, and if you feel any kind of responsibility?

A: I can't talk about that- we've already said everything about that to be said in the paper, and I really don't want to add to it. I mean, The New York Times- more than most newspapers- has absolutely admitted what we thought was faulty and what was not. There's just nothing I can add to that at all. And I certainly don't want to talk about that on

Press Freedom Day when our thoughts are with Alan Johnston and other journalists that are being killed.

Q: Well my thoughts are also with the Iraqis. There are half a million dead- thanks in part to

your newspaper-

A: Oh come on.

Q: Your newspaper was one of the primary advocates for the war-

A: Oh come on, I can't talk to you-

Q: Your newspaper was primary- yes it was- Judith Miller got a security clearance from Donald Rumsfeld, sir-

A: The New York Times is not responsible for any dead Iraqis. I won't listen to that-

Q: None of the other American journalists but Judith Miller from your paper got a security

clearance from the US Defense Secretary himself. How is this different from working for the government?

A: You are are defiling Press Freedom Day- Shut up! This is about Press Freedom, this is not about defiling the Press. We've just come back from a demonstration for Alan Johnston for journalists being killed and that's what this day is about- Press Freedom.



Perhaps BBC World News Editor Jon Williams best summarized the outcome of "shutting up" journalists: "We must not stand by and allow the intimidation of journalists- wherever it happens. If we do, we will pay a heavy price... There will be no eyes or ears telling us what's going on. We won't have the insight from those able to make sense of it."



But then, that may be just how the Powers That Be really want it.

suryadharma · 1 year ago

During that other unjust war, also wrapped up in lies; the American public were given a memorable motto to describe a method of its madness: "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it." Look like the old methods were put in use for called "Shock & Awe". Those who wish to make "a strong case that taking down Saddam saved lives"; a brand new quip may work better: "It is necessary to killed millions in order to take down one."
What makes Bush & his supporters think they can play God? Easy for scribes to play fast and loose with facts when cheer leading for war is a way for them to earn their keep or make profit. Easy for people to mouth that this "war is worth the sacrifice"; when the war has not cost them a loved one; no lost limbs; no mutilated mind. How many mothers will echo these words: "I gave them a good boy, and they turned him into a murderer"?
Five years on...Let's remind the Iraqis that they owe the Americans showers of flowers for all those tons of ammunition & depleted uranium that were gifted on them.Go tell the Iraqis that the destruction, the misery, the mayhem, and the death are all worthwhile! They should be grateful for the privilege of enjoying this bloody cakewalk firsthand.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."
How many Americans carry this Jeffersonian conscience?

mannstein · 1 year ago

I'm no weapons nor intelligence expert but I do have a smattering of common sense. Not once did I believe that Saddam had nuclear or biological weapons even after that pathetic performance by Colin Powell at the UN. Watching Powell's body language at the time it was clear that not even he was convinced of the nonsense he was presenting on behalf of the Administration. Unfortunately they used the man's good reputation to sell their illegal war to the world.



Joshka Fischer then Geramn Foreign Minister didn't believe it either and told Donald Rumsfeld as much in Munich. But then he represented the Old Europe.



Sadly the scribblers in the Press are regarded to such high degree in the US that they will never be held accountable for the role they played in getting the American people involved in this criminal enterprise.

mclaren · 1 year ago

I think it was quite obvious that Stalin had no significant ties to Hitler. FDR built an entire illegal and immoral war where over 500,000 Americans and untold millions died on the lie that somehow a Stalin-Hitler Pact was dangerous to the United States. With this, he backed up his already-illegal war-for-oil against the Japanese -- all with the flag-waving help of a few American journalists.



And that damned George Washington. His fascist little Culper Ring of spies so damagaed the image of the Colonies that it would be centuries before we could crawl out from under the sludge of shame, only to be thrown back under after Al Gore was cheated out of his rightfully won election. Not in my name, G.W!!!!



HALLIBURTON!!!!

jayb · 1 year ago

Saddam intended to kill off the Kurds , re-invade Kuwait and use nuclear weapons against Israel if he ever had the chance.

Assertions such as these, well, are idiotic -- especially without a link to back them up in some way.

If Saddam had gotten free it is very likely that he would have killed more than the were killed by US actions. There are very good arguments against the war , but the moral argument isn

anacherforester · 1 year ago

Goldberg is a second-generation neocon and Hayes is a big time hack. I've lost what little remaining respect I had for David Bradley.

-AF
sullyisafraud.blogspot.com