 |
 |
 |
|
Let's get him! |
Posted on 08/21/2002 8:51:59 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
WASHINGTON -- Although the U.S. government labels Iraq as a sponsor of terrorism, Saddam Hussein's government exports relatively little compared to some of its neighbors, U.S. officials say. Continues.
================================================================
The Media anti-War Campaign; From Desperation to Dementia
The media campaign to thwart U.S. plans to attack Iraq has grown from desperation to full-scale dementia. The rambling confusion and incoherence which passes for 'reasoned' debate from foes of Iraqi liberation now permeates the 'coverage' itself.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a better illustration than in U.S.: Iraqi Weapons Primary Threat, a piece by Associated Press writer, John J. Lumpkin, published on Tuesday. It's not that the 'reporting' was slipshod, nor that the fact-checking was shoddy or careless. Occasional slip-ups and goofs by unwitting reporters trying to beat a deadline are understandable.
But Mr. Lumkin's piece is not just a jumble of innocent mistakes. It's rather a collection of barely concealed political talking points brazeningly thrown together intentionally to deceive. The theme reflects the AP's political agenda -- its persistent opposition to possible U.S. military action in Iraq.
I said the press is showing signs of dementia. Given the age of the internet, the AP must be cuckoo to think it could win any converts by posting an article so easily refuted.
Mr. Lumpkin opens with this amazing assertion: "Although the U.S. government labels Iraq as a sponsor of terrorism, Saddam Hussein's government exports relatively little compared to its neighbors, U.S. officials say." Note Mr. Lumpkin is unable to cite any "U.S. officials" by name -- on the record.
Care to hazard a guess why not?
Simple answer: Because the claim is ludicrous. Those "U.S. officials" would need to be smoking crack to say something as stupid as that -- on or off the record.
Or does Mr. Lumpkin consider what happened circa April '93 (mentioned only in passing near the end of his piece) a "relatively little" terrorist event?
Saddam Hussein, through agents, mounted an assassination attempt against former President George H.W. Bush in April '93 during a visit to Kuwait. Or does Mr. Lumpkin believe in statue-of-limitations for presidential assassination attempts?
Has Mr. Lumpkin forgotten the architect behind the (first) World Trade Center bombing on February 26, 1993? His name is Saddam Hussein. His agent, Ramzi Yousef, together with al-Qaeda, intended to kill tens of thousands of Americans that day, toppling New York's tallest skyscrapers in a deadly fog of cyanide gas. The carnage would be Saddam's 'revenge' for Desert Storm -- his ultimate reprisal. "Relatively little" terrorism, eh Mr Lumpkin?
'What common interests could Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden conceivably share?', the skeptic demands.
Answer: Their common hatred of the United States. Both are Arabs, both are Sunni Muslims and both want U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. But the reason for U.S. troop presence there is to deter another Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
'The enemy of my enemy is my friend', says an ancient Arab proverb.
Mr. Lumpkin continues: "U.S. counterterrorism officials have been searching high and low for evidence linking Iraq to international terrorist networks -- in part to feed the appetites of those in the government who want reasons to depose Saddam. But they have come up with few hard connections."
Oh, really? News to me.
(Note the pejorative "to feed the appetite" for war, the motive Mr. Lumpkin blithely ascribes to government officials probing links between Saddam and international terrorist groups.)
"No hard connections", eh?
Oh, gee, what does Mr. Lumpkin consider al-Qaeda, then? This "international terrorist network", it turns out, has very close ties with Iraqi intelligence, has had so for years, according to New Yorker reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, who documents this from interviews of Kurdish-held prisoners in northern Iraq. The fighters are linked to Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist Muslim group whose members are trained in al-Qaeda camps.
In a blockbuster titled, The Great Terror (New Yorker, March 25, 2002 edition), Mr. Goldberg writes that Ansar al-Islam recieves "funds directly from al-Qaeda; that the intelligence service of Saddam Hussein has joint control, with al-Qaeda operatives, over Ansar al-Islam; that Saddam Hussein hosted a senior leader of al-Qaeda in Baghdad in 1992; that a number of al-Qaeda members fleeing Afghanistan have been secretly brought into territory controlled by Ansar al-Islam"
If Mr. Lumpkin is unfamiliar with Goldberg's work, he should be fired.
Then again, the odds are he is.
"Probably the best-known terrorist group associated with Iraq is the Abu Nidal Organization...", Mr. Lumpkin writes.
But...but...but, I thought there was no "hard connection" linking Saddam to terrorism?
That's where 'dementia' comes in. Apparently, the writer forgot what he wrote only a few paragraphs earlier.
Want more evidence of dementia?
Try this: "Iraq", Mr. Lumpkin observes, "has also been making payments of up to $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers since the Israeli-Palestinian clashes began in September 2000."
So, lemme see if I get this straight.....Iraq is implicated in a plot to kill a former President, along with the bombing of the World Trade Center; was home to one of the world's most notorious terrorist gang-ringleaders; checks of $25,000 + are made out to families of homicide bombers, and yet, despite all of this, Saddam Hussein is still considered an innocent wall-flower, eh?
Lumpkin: "Many U.S. officials now discount reports that Mohammed Atta, the chief hijacker on Sept. 11, met with an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague in April 2001".
Ah, not so fast. In fact, Czech intelligence had witnessed these meetings first hand. Mr Lumpkin conveniently neglects to mention this.
Going beyond omission of fact, Mr. Lumpkin insinuates in paragraph 22 that, given the "Iraqi intelligence operative" was being watched by Czech security officials", such meetings would not have gone undetected!
By not disclosing that "reports" of such meetings were coming from Czech officials themselves, Mr. Lumpkin commits the journalistic equivalent of a swindle.
Meanwhile, the assassination in Baghdad of Abu Nidal was actually a warning from Saddam Hussein to Yasser Arafat: I don't care how big an icon you are in 'Palestine', re-escalate the intifada, or you'll suffer the same fate.
That's the lowdown according to Gregory Copley, President of the international Strategic Studies Association, who appeared on FOXNEWS' The Big Story with John Gibson yesterday.
"What Saddam is trying to do" said Mr. Copley, "is to ensure that when the conflict with the United States comes, that it becomes an all-Arab conflict, that it brings in the Arab-Israeli dispute so that he can then bring in the Arab world on his side".
Methinks he's on to something.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Great 2cents!
You just keep getting better.
How's that possible?
Oh, forgot...you ARE the 'King'. : )
Methinks he's on to something.
Methinks you are right. And you deserve a raise... instead of 2 cents, how about a nickel.
Your commentaries are always great to read.
Anyhoo... Copley summed up it up brilliantly.
The other thing that needs to be shouted from the rooftops... is the current debate (if you want to call it that) is nothing more than 24 hour news networks filling the airwaves with something. War talk came from the media... It is being whipped up to improve ratings and sell papers.
It is self-manufacturered and self-sustaining. It keeps the ratings high.
It is used to force the President into a position that he is not ready to take.
The media is giddy with the prospects of a war to cover. Why that's what 24 hour news networks were designed for.
Personally, I believe that Saddam will be taken care of because he was to. If he didn't have WMD as most on the left are saying... he would open up his borders and invite the inspectors back. He says he will do that (even invited Congress over)... but words are cheap. When pressured, he folds. Why? Because he is doing just what he is accused of.
This war on terror has to be taken more seriously than a ratings bonanza. It is life and death. The terrorists will not stop coming. In fact, as they watch the media self-destruct and hyperventilate on the "war" issue, they come to realize that what they believed about Americans was right. We won't fight.
But, the truth is... the dogs bark and caravan passes by. President Bush is ignoring the barking press demanding, yellow journalism style that predominates the airwaves as good journalism. They demand that the President present his case right now. NOW! We must know now! Well, maybe it would do more harm than good to know now. When, the President is ready, he will put forth the case.
But for the most part, if you need justification... just watch TV this September 11th... when those Towers come down again... that should be reason enough.
For Iraq is important... both militarily and psychological... to deliver a message to all terrorists and all regimes that support terrorism... we will not falter, and we will not fail!
Good job JH2!
"...the assassination in Baghdad of Abu Nidal was actually a warning from Saddam Hussein to Yasser Arafat: I don't care how big an icon you are in 'Palestine', re-escalate the intifada, or you'll suffer the same fate."
Is this just a hunch, or have you seen solid evidence? I'm still not discounting the possibility that our CIA blew Nidal away!!
FReegards...MUD
|
|
|
|
|
Let's get him! |
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.