Home | Community | Message Board

Vesp.co, Inc.
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1

what the fuck!!!?????
    #1514622 - 05/02/03 01:15 PM (15 years, 27 days ago)


MSNBC Article on Bush "Misstatement" Pulled Off Site

>>> While the fact that a big media outlet erased its own reporting to protect the powerful isn't a surprise (although it is still maddening), the big shock is that another tentacle of the corporate media called them on it. On 29 April 2003, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote:

Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility? Some strange things certainly happened. For example, in September Mr. Bush cited an International Atomic Energy Agency report that he said showed that Saddam was only months from having nuclear weapons. "I don't know what more evidence we need," he said. In fact, the report said no such thing ? and for a few hours the lead story on MSNBC's Web site bore the headline "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq." Then the story vanished ? not just from the top of the page, but from the site.

Say no more, Paulie. Below is the article that MSNBC buried, then yanked.

White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq

President Meets With Blair on Strategy Ahead of Speech

Saturday, 7 September, 2002

Seeking to build a case Saturday that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, President Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq's impending rearmament. But in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.

Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair talked to reporters before opening about three hours of talks at Camp David, Bush's presidential retreat in Maryland.

Blair cited a newly released satellite photo of Iraq identifying new construction at several sites linked in the past to Baghdad's development of nuclear weapons. And both leaders mentioned a 1998 report by the U.N.-affiliated International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, that said Saddam could be six months away from developing nuclear weapons.

"I don't know what more evidence we need," Bush said as he greeted Blair for a brainstorming session on Iraq. "We owe it to future generations to deal with this problem."

In a joint appearance before the summit, the two leaders repeated their shared view that Saddam's ouster was the only way to stop Iraq's pursuit - and potential use - of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

"The policy of inaction is not a policy we can responsibly subscribe to," Blair said as he joined Bush in trying to rally reluctant allies to deal with Saddam, perhaps by military force.


Contrary to Bush's claim, however, the 1998 IAEA report did not say that Iraq was six months away from developing nuclear capability, NBC News' Robert Windrem reported Saturday.

Instead, Windrem reported, the Vienna, Austria-based agency said in 1998 that Iraq had been six to 24 months away from such capability before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the U.N.-monitored weapons inspections that followed.

The war and the inspections destroyed much of Iraq's nuclear infrastructure and required Iraq to turn over its highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Windrem reported. In a summary of its 1998 report, the IAEA said that "based on all credible information available to date ... the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its programme goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material."


A senior White House official acknowledged Saturday night that the 1998 report did not say what Bush claimed. "What happened was, we formed our own conclusions based on the report," the official told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell.

Meanwhile, Mark Gwozdecky, a spokesman for the U.N. agency, disputed Bush's and Blair's assessment of the satellite photograph, which was first publicized Friday. Contrary to news service reports, there was no specific photo or building that aroused suspicions, he told Windrem.

The photograph in question was not U.N. intelligence imaging but simply a picture from a commercial satellite imaging company, Gwozdecky said. He said that the IAEA reviewed commercial satellite imagery regularly and that, from time to time, it noticed construction at sites it had previously examined.

Gwozdecky said the new construction indicated in the photograph was no surprise and that no conclusions were drawn from it. "There is not a single building we see," he said.


Windrem reported that of all the international inspection regimes - chemical, biological, missile and nuclear - it is the U.N. inspectors who are most comfortable with Iraq's cooperation on nuclear matters. In fact, the United Nations said last week that Iraq had been in contact with U.N. representatives about a possible new round of talks on weapons inspections.

A Security Council report Tuesday on the work of UNMOVIC - the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission - found that personnel from UNMOVIC and the atomic energy agency met in Vienna in July with Iraqi officials and Dr. Jaffar Jaffar, a high-level Iraqi contact on nuclear weapons issues.

The head of UNMOVIC also took part in what the report called a "dialogue" between Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri.

Tuesday's report stated that Sabri wrote Annan expressing "the desire of the Government of Iraq to conduct a round of technical talks" between Iraqi officials and UNMOVIC representatives to review work on inspections between May 1991 and December 1998 and to discuss other matters to be resolved "when the inspection regime returns to Iraq."

Sabri extended "the offer of Iraq to take part in a further series of technical discussions" in a letter last month, the U.N. report said.

U.S. officials insisted Saturday night that there was plenty of evidence nonetheless that Iraq was intent on developing weapons of mass destruction.

A senior administration official told NBC News that Iraq had also tried to acquire thousands of aluminum tubes over the past 14 months that would specifically be used in developing nuclear weapons. The shipments were blocked, said the official, who would not say where they originated.

"There continues to be ample evidence that Saddam Hussein has relentlessly tried to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons," the official said.

The tubing is needed to build gas centrifuges, which can be used to enrich uranium to weapons grade.


In another development, a former U.N. arms inspector who does not believe that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, arrived in Baghdad declaring that his mission was to try to stop any war on Iraq.

Scott Ritter, who arrived in Baghdad late Saturday, was expected to address the Iraqi parliament on Sunday. He was also due to meet senior Iraqi officials.

Ritter said the trip was at his own initiative "As an American citizen concerned about the direction that my country is taking, I think that's the reason why I'm here."

"I'm here to help set in motion a sequence of events that hopefully could prevent a war that doesn't need to be fought," he told CNN.


Bush and Blair met Saturday ahead of Bush's speech Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly to find ways to stop the threat posed by Saddam.

Blair said some international leaders were raising "perfectly reasonable questions" about a possible military attack on Iraq. Many U.S. and British allies are voicing doubts about a pre-emptive attack.

"We've got to make sure that we work out a way forward that, of course, mobilizes the maximum support but does so on the basis of removing a threat that the United Nations itself has determined is a threat to the whole of the world," Blair said.

Aides insisted that Bush had not settled on when or even whether to use a military attack or other means to accomplish that goal. Regardless, Blair - in marked contrast to other U.S. allies who have urged caution - said the United States should not have to go it alone.

"I do think it's important we get the broadest possible support for what we do," Blair told reporters earlier Saturday aboard his plane. "We have always got to act lawfully, and that we will do."

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
Re: what the fuck!!!????? [Re: ]
    #1515131 - 05/02/03 04:12 PM (15 years, 27 days ago)

I know it's hard for some literary purists to comprehend, but the term "self-censorship" really does have a function.

Whether this is an example of "self-censorship" (Krugman: "Did the news media feel that it was unpatriotic to question the administration's credibility?") or if it's an example of simple, unadulterated censorship, I dunno.

Here's my definition of "self-censorship" (and I've worked as a journalist):
Anytime a journalist, or an editor, or a source, gives mis-information or withholds information, either out of a sense of loyalty to some authority or of a fear of "retaliation" from some authority, self-censorship has taken place.

Sorry I wasn't able to take part in the debate on self-censorship that took place a while back.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Registered: 04/23/00
Posts: 532
Re: what the fuck!!!????? [Re: ]
    #1515532 - 05/02/03 07:03 PM (15 years, 27 days ago)

Wow, and if its that easy to find their errors, and NOBODY is calling them on it. Just shows you how blind people are right now even in the face of facts to the contrary.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Help Fight Censorship In The War On Drugs!!! Ekstaza 1,718 8 01/17/04 03:37 PM
by Anonymous
* Iran Will Allow U.N. Inspections of Nuclear Sites Zahid 577 3 10/23/03 01:50 AM
by Zahid
* We're fucked. US computerised vote tallying may be rigged enotake2 1,302 18 01/02/04 03:25 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* Gov't imposes censorship and secretly seizes book records LanaM 455 1 03/05/03 08:23 AM
by Rono
* Fuck France!
( 1 2 3 all )
LanaM 3,234 45 03/19/03 07:22 PM
by Evolving
* Fuck Palastine
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
ehud 7,967 200 12/17/02 04:11 PM
by Innvertigo
* FUCK the soldiers
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
PsiloKitten 3,154 81 04/05/03 01:03 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* fucked up shit...
( 1 2 3 all )
Anonymous 1,950 45 09/24/03 05:37 AM
by Baby_Hitler

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
359 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 19 queries.