Karen, The Republicans own the Media, What surprises you about this?
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 10:05 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] "Coalition of the Billing" and the Brave New World Order > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE[NL]JUNE 20, 2003[NL]2:46 PM CONTACT: Fairness & > Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)[NL]Newsroom: (212) 633-6700 > > Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments > Gen. Says White House Pushed Saddam Link Without Evidence > > NEW YORK - June 20 - Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox > News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government > officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for > the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the > Sunday chat shows. But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was > unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark > told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a > campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting > that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged > to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a > lack of evidence. > Here is a transcript of the exchange: > CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting > immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam > Hussein." > RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?" > CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the > White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and > I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is > state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I > said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never > got any evidence." > Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that > aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely > five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the > secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking > Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the > attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote > Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to > hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for > Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as > demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep > it all up, things related and not." > Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence > when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging > revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still > seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed > intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate > deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller > accounting of this story. > > http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0620-09.htm > > US General Condemns Iraq Failures > By Ed Vulliamy in New York, published on Sunday, June 22, 2003 by the > Observer/UK > One of the most experienced and respected figures in a generation of > American warfare and peacekeeping yesterday accused the US administration of > 'failing to prepare for the consequences of victory' in Iraq. At the end of > a week that saw a war of attrition develop against the US military, General > William Nash told The Observer that the US had 'lost its window of > opportunity' after felling Saddam Hussein's regime and was embarking on a > long-term expenditure of people and dollars for which it had not planned. > 'It is an endeavor which was not understood by the administration to begin > with,' he said > Now retired, Nash served in the Vietnam war and in Operation Desert Storm > (the first Gulf War) before becoming commander of US forces in Bosnia and > then an acclaimed UN Civil Affairs administrator in Kosovo. He is currently > a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, > specializing in conflict prevention. > In one of the most outspoken critiques from a man of his standing, Nash said > the US had 'failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi > people and the depth of hostility towards the US in much of the country'. > 'It is much greater and deeper than just the consequences of war,' he added. > 'It comes from 12 years of sanctions, Israel and Palestinians, and a host of > issues.' As a result, he says, 'we are now seeing the re-emergence of a > reasonably organized military opposition - small scale, but it could > escalate.' > It was insufficient for the US to presume that the forces now harassing and > killing American troops were necessarily confined to what he called a > residue of the Saddam regime. 'What we are facing today is a confluence of > various forces which channel the disgruntlement of the people,' said Nash. > 'You can't tell who is behind the latest rocket propelled grenade. It could > be a father whose daughter has been killed; it could be a political leader > trying to gain a following, or it could be rump Saddam. Either way, they are > starting to converge.' He said: 'the window of opportunity which occurred > with the fall of Saddam was not seized in terms of establishing stability'. > 'In the entire region - and Iraq is typical - there is a sense that America > can do whatever it wants. So that if America decides to protect the > oilfields and oil ministry, it can. 'And if America doesn't provide > electricity and water or fails to protect medical supplies, it is because > they don't want to or they don't care.' > Nash is reluctant to make comparisons with Vietnam: 'There are far more > things that were different about Vietnam than there are similarities. Except > perhaps the word "quagmire". Maybe that is the only thing that is the same.' > (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 > http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0622-05.htm > > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
