|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/11/2003 7:12:37 PM PDT by Roscoe Karns
FRONTLINE CONCEDES: Here's a fascinating encounter with the producer of the Frontline special on the war against Saddam, Martin Smith. It's from the Washington Post's online chat today:
Boston, Mass: Why did Martin Smith at least twice say while conducting an interview in the program that "Americans were sold this war as an imminent threat..." That is a bold face lie, an untruth from beginning to end. In President Bush's state of the union speech, he specifically countered that argument by in essence saying we cannot afford to wait until the threat from Iraq is imminent. For a program with Truth in it's title, that's a big slip up and I heard Mr. Smith say it at least twice.Good for you, Mr Boston. What we see here is that Smith has interpreted what the administration said before the war to be an "imminent threat." But the only time I know of that the exact phrase was used was in president Bush's critical State of the Union address before the war. And in that speech, this is what Bush said:
Martin Smith: I'm glad you asked this question. I believe I may have used the term "imminent threat" more than twice. If you go back to the records you will see that while the president does not use the exact phrase, he talks about a "grave and gathering danger." He talks about Saddam's ability to launch chemical or biological weapons in 45 minutes.
No one that I spoke to in the administration who supported the war quibbled with the use of the term "imminent threat." It's simply not a quotation - it's a summary of the president's assessment.
Boston, Mass: No, Martin: it's a bold face lie, an untruth from beginning to end.
"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."Yes, that is a "grave and gathering danger." But it is not "imminent." In fact, it specifically makes a distinction that Smith's propaganda elides. Think I'm as biased as Smith? Here's how the leading anti-war Democrat - yes, Howard Dean - described Bush's position on September 29, 2002: "The president has never said that Saddam has the capability of striking the United States with atomic or biological weapons any time in the immediate future." I would say that "any time in the immediate future" is as good a definition as any of the word "imminent." So was even Howard Dean spinning for Bush? Of course not. He was summing up the simple truth. Smith is distorting the historical record to make a fake case against the administration. Perhaps it was intentional; perhaps he was just so blinded by liberal bias he even believed his own untruths. But this time, he's been caught.
With thanks to Snopes.com and Don Luskin.
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." --Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." --Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." --Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction... [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." --Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll read after the ballgame. I am so tired of this crap from these leftist ------
As Mark Steyn would say..."It was a real Thumbsucker!" WHaaaa!! WHaaaa! Whaaaa!
This just isn't true. More biased than Bill Moyers' stuff, or Michael Moore's?
Some of the Frontline programs in the last several years have been damn good. (They don't have a fixed staff of primary producers and journalists, so the shows vary quite a bit.) "The War Behind Closed Doors," last season, was a very fair account of the rise of the "neocons" and the doctrine of preemption. A few years back they ripped Clinton mercilessly (and justifiably) over Rwanda. Last season there was a glowing and haunting portrait -- "The Man Who Knew" -- of 911 hero John O'Neill, the FBI bin Laden expert who left the agency after it repeatedly undermined his efforts to identify and expose our enemies, and went on to become head of security at the WTC. One of the CIA's finest field agents, Bob Baer, was also profiled as part of program called (IIRC) "Tehran and Terror". Previously they have done multiple documentaries highlighting Saddam's brutality and beligerance. "Battle for the Holy Land," which profiled both an IDF unit and a Hamas cell during the current "intifada", was very fair to the Israelis. It described very clearly the rationale and criteria behind "targeted killings," and portrayed the dedication and professionalism of the Israeli army.
Even in the current show, with the producer and interviewer Smith obviously biased (he frequently argued with his subjects in the irritating and mewling way that libs have) there was still significant airtime given to truth tellers like Kanan Makiya and Richard Perle.
I've found that Frontline is nearly always worth tuning in. Yes, they still do shows that are intolerably biased, but then that's evident quickly and you can always change the channel. But by writing the show off you've missed some really good stuff.
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.