The Daily Grasshopper

On Monday of this week, a strange story appeared on the front page of the New York Times. Maybe you read it - or have heard about it since. It's generated a lot of interest among people who watch the mainstream media in this country. The article, by the Times' Judith Miller, was called "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" (NYT, 4/21/03, p. A1). The story's dateline is "With The 101st Airborne Division, south of Baghdad." After reading the story, you get the sense of just how "with the 101st" Miller really was.

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html

Here's the astonishing part:

"Under the terms of her accreditation to report on the activities of [Mobile Exploitation Team] Alpha, this reporter was not permitted to interview the scientist or visit his home. Nor was she permitted to write about the discovery of the scientist for three days, and the copy was then submitted for a check by military officials.

Those officials asked that details of what chemicals were uncovered be deleted. They said they feared that such information could jeopardize the scientist's safety by identifying the part of the weapons program where he worked."

As I wrote already, this article has been the subject of a fair amount of discussion since it appeared. Dan Kennedy, a Boston-based media watcher, writing on the day the story came out, wondered "based on the sketchy, censored details that she has to offer today, why was this story published on the front page? For that matter, why was it published at all?" Maybe the answer, or at least some clues, can be taken from the story itself. Here are two paragraphs that are worth pondering:

"The officials' account of the scientist's assertions and the discovery of the buried material, which they described as the most important discovery to date in the hunt for illegal weapons, supports the Bush administration's charges that Iraq continued to develop those weapons and lied to the United Nations about it. Finding and destroying illegal weapons was a major justification for the war.

The officials' accounts also provided an explanation for why United States forces had not yet turned up banned weapons in Iraq. The failure to find such weapons has become a political issue in Washington."

The lack of banned weapons has indeed been a political issue - and will continue to be, especially if Bush & Co. insist on an entirely U.S.-run inspection team. Then, the next thing you know, Miller's piece comes out. And before you could say "Pentagon Public Relations Victory," we have both a possible discovery of "chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment" AND a plausible "explanation for why United States forces had not yet turned up banned weapons in Iraq." Not a bad two-fer for Washington.

The next day, on Tuesday, the Boston Globe ran a story by correspondent Bryan Bender that included this paragraph:

"US military search teams, tipped off by an informant who claims he was a midlevel chemical weapons scientist employed by the Hussein regime, have found the ingredients necessary to make chemical weapons at a location south of Baghdad, the New York Times reported yesterday."

Although the Globe article does mention that the story was "relayed to the New York Times by military officials," no mention is made of the editorial oversight those same officials exercised over Miller's piece (BG, "US, Britain differ on new UN inspections" 4/22/03, p. A11). Apparently unwilling to countenance the possibility that the U.S. government is trying to pull another fast one, Bender wrote that "the report was puzzling to US officials and specialists." Yes, very puzzling, Bryan.

But the genie was already out of the bottle, puzzling or not. And Bender's report wasn't the only one referring to Miller's story the next day. The Wall Street Journal's cover story, "U.N. Scrambles to Reclaim Role Amid Debate on Rebuilding Iraq," contained this mention:

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld yesterday praised the progress of military teams who are scouting sites suspected before the war and, he said, getting reports from Iraqis about weapons caches. 'They're finding all kinds of information,' he said, without elaborating. Mr. Rumsfeld said he had no comfirmation of a New York Times report of an Iraqi weapons scientist pointing out for U.S. troops where precursors for chemical weapons had been hidden."

The key phrase here is "he said, without elaborating." If there were a reporter in the room worthy of the name, Rumsfeld wouldn't be able to move on to the next question "without elaborating." None of these guys - Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle - are going to come out and give it to us straight. And we shouldn't expect them to. A bunch of multimillionaire oil and defense industry fatcats - which is what they are - have a lot of reasons to keep their cards close to their vests, especially when talking about the invasion of Iraq. When reporters like Miller (and her editors) allow themselves to be used by politicians so openly, we have lost any semblance of a free and fair press. When Rumsfeld can simply refuse to discuss what evidence, if any, exists of weapons of mass destruction, there's no point in even buying the paper except for the dark humor quotient (which has been getting a little too high for my liking these days).

And the Miller story (should the commander of the 101st have gotten a byline on the article?) lives on. Today's Boston Globe had a column by Jeff Jacoby, one of their regular right-wing contributors, that referred to the Monday Times story. Jacoby's piece basically argues that it doesn't matter if we find the weapons that served as Bush's pretext for invading - the important thing is that the Iraqi people are free. Here's the mention of Miller's article:

"Did he trash his hoard at the last minute? Judith Miller reported in the Times this week that a scientist claiming to have worked in Iraq's WMD program told US military personnel 'that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began.' The scientist reportedly led the Americans to a supply of chemical precursors for illegal toxic agents. If the scientist is right, we'll know it in due course. If he's wrong, we'll know that, too. There is only one good reason to be worried now about the lack of a 'smoking gun': fear that Saddam's supply of plague and poison may have fallen into dangerous hands - or is under no one's control."

You can read the whole thing here:

"Where's the smoking gun?"
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/114/oped/Where_s_the_smoking_gun_+.shtml

On January 25th I wrote "Time to Prepare for the Big Lie" (http://www.netway.com/~pkeaney/012503biglie.html). In it, I claimed that "the important thing for Americans to remember is that governments lie. When it comes right down to it, if the government wants to do something, and they need to justify it to the American people (fearing the people won't go along otherwise), they make some stuff up. It's happened before." And it happened again. Two examples, which are now openly acknowledged, are the administration's attempts to link Iraq to Nigerian uranium (based on forged documents) and Al-Qaeda (despite no credible evidence).

Governments are abetted in this important work by reporters. Some simply refuse to ask hard questions - most of them, actually. It's easier to get along (and move up) if you don't pose too many tough questions to powerful people. Do that once or twice, and you'll quickly find yourself looking for other work. Most reporters are simply unwilling to do what they must do if democracy is going to work - find out the truth, report it accurately, and hold power accountable.

But there are other kinds of reporters, too.

On Tuesday, Robert Fisk was interviewed by Amy Goodman on her daily radio show, "Democracy Now." Here's the part of the transcript where they talked about the story in the Times:

"Goodman: Well, I wanted to ask you about - you might have heard about Judith Miller's report in the New York Times, saying a former Iraqi scientist has told a US military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began and also said Iraq secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to Syria starting in the 80's and that more recently...

Fisk (overlapping): How amazing... how amazing. How very fortunate that that special report should come out now. Listen, every time I read Judith Miller in the New York Times, I nod sagely and smile. That's all I'm going to say to you, Amy. I'm sorry. Don't ask me to even comment upon it. It's not a serious issue."

I happen to think Fisk is a tremendous reporter, and I've linked to several of his articles in the past couple of months. But he's wrong here. When the Pentagon can get its version of the truth published on the front page of the New York Times, at the precise moment when worldwide skepticism about the pretext for our government's illegal war is reaching a fever pitch (and the administration is looking for an excuse to start its next war), it's a very, very serious issue.

PK
http://www.dailygrasshopper.com