SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (17289)4/15/2003 4:25:44 PM
From: tonka552000  Respond to of 89467
 
Afghanny is similar with as many as 10 tribal factions...wonder how long the coalition will be there...btw, doesn't that coalition have a few "allies" helping us...?? naaahhh...we'd hate to have the French and Germans help us there...



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (17289)4/15/2003 4:37:02 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Corruption at CNN

washtimes.com

Peter Collins

Mr. Eason Jordan's admission that CNN had to suppress the news from Baghdad in order to report it brought back memories for me.

In January 1993, I was in Baghdad as a reporter for CNN on a probationary, three-month contract. Previously, I had been a war reporter for CBS News in Vietnam and East Asia and in Central America for ABC News. I had also made three trips to Baghdad for ABC News before the Gulf War.

Now, Bill Clinton was about to be inaugurated and there was speculation that Saddam Hussein might "test" the new American president. Would the new administration be willing to enforce the "no-fly" zones set up in northern and southern Iraq after the Gulf War?

CNN had made its reputation during the war with its exclusive reports from Baghdad. Shortly after my arrival, I was surprised to see CNN President Tom Johnson and Eason Jordan, then chief of international news gathering, stride into the al-Rasheed Hotel in Baghdad. They were there to help CNN bid for an exclusive interview with Saddam Hussein, timed to coincide with the coming inauguration of President Clinton.

I took part in meetings between the CNN executives and various officials purported to be close to Saddam. We met with his personal translator; with a foreign affairs adviser; with Information Minister Latif Jassim; and with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.

In each of these meetings, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan made their pitch: Saddam Hussein would have an hour's time on CNN's worldwide network; there would be no interruptions, no commercials. I was astonished. From both the tone and the content of these conversations, it seemed to me that CNN was virtually groveling for the interview.

The day after one such meeting, I was on the roof of the Ministry of Information, preparing for my first "live shot" on CNN. A producer came up and handed me a sheet of paper with handwritten notes. "Tom Johnson wants you to read this on camera," he said. I glanced at the paper. It was an item-by-item summary of points made by Information Minister Latif Jassim in an interview that morning with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan.

The list was so long that there was no time during the live shot to provide context. I read the information minister's points verbatim. Moments later, I was downstairs in the newsroom on the first floor of the Information Ministry. Mr. Johnson approached, having seen my performance on a TV monitor. "You were a bit flat there, Peter," he said. Again, I was astonished. The president of CNN was telling me I seemed less-than-enthusiastic reading Saddam Hussein's propaganda.

The next day, I was CNN's reporter on a trip organized by the Ministry of Information to the northern city of Mosul. "Minders" from the ministry accompanied two busloads of news people to an open, plowed field outside Mosul. The purpose was to show us that American warplanes were bombing "innocent Iraqi farmers." Bits of American ordinance were scattered on the field. One large piece was marked "CBU." I recognized it as the canister for a Cluster Bomb Unit, a weapon effective against troops in the open, or against "thin-skinned" armor. I was puzzled. Why would U.S. aircraft launch CBUs against what appeared to be an open field? Was it really to kill "innocent Iraqi farmers?" The minders showed us no victims, no witnesses. I looked around. About 2000 yards distant on a ridgeline, two radar dishes were just visible against the sky. The ground was freshly plowed. Now, I understood. The radars were probably linked to Soviet-made SA-6 surface-to-air missiles mounted on tracks, armored vehicles, parked in the field at some distance from the dishes to keep them safe. After the bombing, the Iraqis had removed the missile launchers and had plowed the field to cover the tracks.

On the way back to Baghdad, I explained to other reporters what I thought had happened, and wrote a report that was broadcast on CNN that night.

The next day, Brent Sadler, CNN's chief reporter at the time in Baghdad (he is now in northern Iraq), came up to me in a hallway of the al Rasheed Hotel. He had been pushing for the interview with Saddam and had urged Mr. Johnson and Mr. Jordan to come to Baghdad to help seal the deal. "Petah," he said to me in his English accent, "you know we're trying to get an interview with Saddam. That piece last night was not helpful."

So, we were supposed to shade the news to get an interview with Saddam?

As it happens, CNN never did get that interview. A few months later, I had passed my probationary period and was contemplating my future with CNN. I thought long and hard; could I be comfortable with a news organization that played those kinds of games? I decided, no, I could not, and resigned.

In my brief acquaintance with Mr. Jordan at CNN, I formed the impression of a decent man, someone with a conscience. On the day Mr. Jordan published his piece in the New York Times, a panel on Fox News was discussing his astonishing admissions. Brit Hume wondered, "Why would he ever write such a thing?" Another panelist suggested, "Perhaps his conscience is bothering him." Mr. Eason, it should be.

Peter Collins has more than 30 years of experience in broadcast news, including outlets such as the Voice of America, BBC, CBS, ABC and CNN.



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (17289)4/16/2003 4:47:36 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
When Baghdad Fell

by Milton Batiste



The troops entered Baghdad amid loud celebrations. Thousands of prisoners were taken. Solemn words
were spoken:

"People of Baghdad, remember for 26 generations you have suffered under strange tyrants who have
ever endeavoured to set one Arab house against another in order that they might profit by your
dissensions. This policy is abhorrent to Great Britain and her Allies for there can be neither peace nor
prosperity where there is enmity or misgovernment. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands
as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators."

This proclamation was issued by British General Stanley Maude, on the 11th of March, 1917.

Aside from striking a decisive propaganda blow for the Allies, the fall of Baghdad effectively brought
to an end Turkish activity in the region. The defeat of the Turks in World War I meant the end of the
Ottoman Empire. It did not mean the end of imperialism. The winners divided the loot among them,
with the new League of Nations giving Britain a mandate to run Iraq, as well as Trans-Jordan, Palestine
and Egypt. Arab nationalists, who had hoped for independence in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and elsewhere,
were bitterly disappointed.

But all was not well for the British after the fall of Baghdad. Captain Arnold Wilson, the civil
commissioner in newly captured Baghdad, believed that the creation of the new state was a recipe for
disaster. He warned that the deep differences between the three main communities – Sunni, Shia and
Kurds – ensured it could only be "the antithesis of democratic government".

Arab nationalists wanted independence and tribesmen were resentful that the British were more
effective than the Turks in collecting taxes. A rebellion against British rule broke out in July 1920. By
the time British rule was restored in 1921, some 2,000 British soldiers and 8,000 natives had been
killed or wounded.

Britannia ruled brutally. Arthur "Bomber" Harris (who was to lead the bomber offensive against
Germany in World War II) did not try to hide the fact that he had aimed at civilian targets. Harris
admitted in 1924 that he had taught Iraqis "that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically
wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or wounded". Winston Churchill, as British colonial
secretary, agreed that aerial explosives were indeed a good idea. But wouldn't aerial gassing be even
better? As he put it, "I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in
favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes." Others were equally blood-thirsty. TE Lawrence –
Lawrence of Arabia – wrote to the London Observer: "It is odd that we do not use poison gas on
these occasions."

In 1921 Britain installed the Prince Faisal as King of Mesopotamia. Britain controlled the country's
army, foreign policy and finances. King Faisal and his descendents never succeeded in establishing their
nationalist credentials in Iraqi eyes. Arab nationalists wanted true independence, but the British were
not inclined to leave. This was especially true after 1927, when new oil fields were discovered. The oil
rights were given to the Iraqi Petroleum Company, which happened to be a British dominated
company. By that time, the proclamation of General Stanley Maude was just a distant memory. The
liberators acted as if they owned the place. In fact, they did own it.

April 16, 2003