http://counterterrorismblog.org/
Removal of Content By Douglas Farah In light of the ongoing investigations into allegations that Alexis Debat has fabricated news stories, the Counterterrorism Blog has removed his contributions on the site, pending the outcome of the current controversies. FOLLOWING ARE SOME ARTICLES (OR LINKS) WRITTEN BY OR ABOUT ALEXIS DEBAT......... http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/dead_taliban_le.html Dead Taliban Leader Was Training U.S. Recruits http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/185991.aspx North Africa is the New al-Qaeda Hotbed http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ecePentagon 'three-day blitz' plan for Iran http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4415 Another Fantasy Merchant In The Liberal Media - A Sheep In Wolf <http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/4415> 's Clothing? What is it about the liberal media and how easy it is for charlatans to fake news stories? Is it all coincidence and bad luck? Or have they been allowing fakes to speak to America as experts for years for some yet to be disclosed reason. But fakes they are, as we see with the newest fake to be exposed - <http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2169698,00.html> ABC's Alexis Debat: For six years Alexis Debat, who falsely claimed to have earned a PhD at the Sorbonne and worked as an adviser to the French defence ministry, operated as an expert on national security in the world of Washington thinktanks, US network television and French intellectual journals. He was a consultant to ABC television, which sent him on trips to Pakistan, Iraq and Iran to guide their coverage on al-Qaida; a senior fellow on terrorism at the conservative thinktank the Nixon Centre; and a regular contributor to the magazine National Interest, whose honorary chairman is Henry Kissinger. Mr Debat was also a regular in the pages of the French publication Politique International. But, as is now only emerging, Mr Debat not only lacked the credentials he claimed, he fabricated interviews with such figures as the UN secretary general Kofi Annan, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates, New York's mayor Michael Bloomberg, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, and Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Don't assume this is a conservative version of the Liberal media liars we have seen much of. Recall Pvt "Scott Thomas" Beauchamp was actually a liberal mole trying to pose as a US soldier and created fantasy stories to undermine the US Military. He was liar living a lie so as to appear to be the enemy of the left. Alexis Debat may be another well hidden mole, and enemy of conservatives pretending to be a conservative. First off he would be a rare French conservative supportive of Bush policies if he was a true blood conservative. But I don't see him as all that supportive of the Iraq war. You can read his background from the Nixon Center site ( <http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=Debat+%2B+Iraq&fr=yfp-t-501&; u=www.nixoncenter.org/index.cfm%3Faction%3Dshowpage%26page%3Ddebat&w=debat+i raq&d=ZPUuQP4-PcAQ&icp=1&.intl=us> now only available in cache): Areas of expertise: Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, Terrorism Financing Militant ideology, discourse, media strategy Comparative approaches to counter-terrorism (terrorism in the Transatlantic relation) Strategies of Mass Mobilization in Islamic groups (Al Qaeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb'Allah, Groupe Salafiste pour la Predication et le Combat) Diaspora Dynamics & Political Activism (focusing on the Shi'a Diaspora) Social Networks & Augmented Social Networks Theory applied to Islamists activism Counter-insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan Islamic Law, Islamic Finance, Islamic Economics Regions: Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan Selected Publications <http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Hulsman_Debat_TNI_84.pdf> "In Praise of Warlords" (PDF) The National Interest Summer 2006 <http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Debat-Gvosdev.pdf> "America the Vulnerable" (PDF) The National Interest September/October 2006 <http://www.nixoncenter.org/publications/Debat_TNI__82[1].pdf> "Terror and the Fifth Republic" (PDF) The National Interest Winter 2005/2006 <http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/opinion/edgvosdev.php> "Channel the violence" The International Herald Tribune November 21, 2006 <http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/25/opinion/edletmon.php> "Hezbollah blinks; Britain leaves Iraq; NATO expansion and Russia" International Herald Tribune February 25, 2007 <http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/October2004/October2004Debat. html> "Vivisecting the Jihad: Part Two" The National Interest online October 14, 2004 <http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol2Issue30/Vol2Issue30Debat. html> "9/11: Not A Failure. A Choice." The National Interest online July 2003 At ABC News his reporting seemed to be quite fact based and neutraul, as <http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Alexis+Debat%22+%2B+Iraq&; y=Search&fr=yfp-t-501&u=blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/06/zarqawi_replace .html&w=%22alexis+debat%22+iraq&d=UXretv4-Pad8&icp=1&.intl=us> this story on the successor to Zarqawi's successor illustrates (again cached). But it was this report on the Iraq Study Group led by Baker-Hamilton that may have tipped Debat's true views. Most of us supporters of Bush and his efforts on Iraq deride the ISG study as a fig leafed surrender plan to do what Dems want to happen - surrender Iraq. Debat seems <http://www.nationalinterest.org/PrinterFriendly.aspx?id=13176> way too enamored with the ISG to be a 'war pimp' as some reactionaries on the left paint him: This is first and foremost reflected in the report's courageous plan for a phased and responsible troop drawdown. As the Los Angeles Times put it yesterday, the Baker-Hamilton commission has provided "a safe and honorable path" out of Iraq by advocating a gradual, responsible troop drawdown, as well as a refocusing of the U.S. military's mission to training the Iraqi military-which, sadly, features in the report as the most misunderstood actor in the Baker-Hamilton drama. But the commission scores its highest points in its frequent recognition that America's struggle in Iraq is eminently political and that America has lost much of its capacity to play in that game. This is an endorsement of the view that National Interest editor Nikolas K. Gvosdev and I have been defending for several years, and which we recently articulated in a column for the International Herald Tribune (available here). That is not his only echoing of liberal dogma. <http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/May%202005/May2005Debat.html> Here is Debat parroting the left as to the fact Iraq is a magent for al-Qaeda recruits: But while this increased pressure on Al-Qaeda's leadership both in Pakistan and Iraq could signal a very encouraging tipping point in the ongoing campaign against the organization, it may also emphasize a set of harsh realities for the not-so-distant future of America's War on Terror. By opening a new front in the global jihad, which serves as the lifeline of Al-Qaeda's ideological staying power, the Iraq War, despite its many accomplishments, has provided the organization with a much-needed replacement for its Afghan base. There is ample evidence that the same magnetic force that drew so many jihadis to Afghanistan in the 1990s has re-emerged in Iraq, with greater stealth and amplitude, as well as potentially deadlier consequences. Debat is actually a long term pessimist on the war, <http://www.inthenationalinterest.com/Articles/Vol3Issue25/Vol3Issue25Debat. html> deriding our future options from very early on: None of this is good news for the American-led coalition. Not only are terrorist organizations linked to the global mujaheddin underground slowly taking over the insurgency itself, but they are pushing to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before autumn 2001: a public relations windfall for their ideologues, a training ground for their "rookies", and even a safe-haven for their leadership. While this somber horizon is still taking shape, its potential implications must be thought through. Iraq's transformation into a new "field of jihad" will force the U.S. government to abandon the long-term requirements of building a modern and multi-confessional Iraq and focus on the short-term necessities of waging direct war on terror. Want to feed the anti-war nuts? <http://wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/iraq-s04.shtml> Why not claim Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against Iran - that will set the lefties off and allow them to claim Bush is an out-of-control war monger: The account cited discussions at a meeting organized by the National Interest, a right-wing foreign policy journal. One participant, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security studies at the Nixon Center, told the Times that US military planners were not preparing for "pinprick strikes" against Iran's nuclear facilities. "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military," he said. All these positions echo the leftwing or feed their most ardent paranoia. Why does this smell like a set up? Is it because the structure of these stories are all similar? We have lead paragraphs with substantive information on important matters, with a conclusion paragraph that dashes all hope with a pessimistic twist at the end? Did left leaning sources provide Debat important and sound information to wrap his liberal parrot-lines around? Is this Joe and Val Wilson 2.0, who worked with a Democrat candidate to tip a Presidential election based on CIA intel? Doesn't the timing seem way to reminiscent to the Foley story last fall? I just find the whole thing way to pat and the timing too convenient. A supposedly experienced terrorist consultant, exposed as a fraud, is now supposedly a conservative fraud? Is it too coincidental that this charlatan of expertise on terrorism is not only being exposed right now, but exposed as a conservative fraud as well? Is this going to be another round of "Bush Lied, People Died"? Was it meant to be all along!? One has to wonder where did Debat's loyalties lie - with the far left or Bush and his will to win. Right now it looks like Debat was willing to surrender at any cost and feed the liberal conspiracy nuts - and that makes him look like a liberal sheep hiding out in the costume of a conservative wolf. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/abc-news-terrorism-analyst-discreet ly-dismissed-amid-controversy/ <http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/abc-news-terrorism-analyst-discree tly-dismissed-amid-controversy/> ABC News terrorism analyst "discreetly dismissed" amid "controversy" Ahem. Media <http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/09/special-report-.html> Bloodhound is covering a fascinating breach of journalistic ethics. ABC news discovered they couldn't verify the credentials of their terrorism "analyst" Alexis Debat as having a degree from the Sorbonne, and it turned out he might have fabricated an interview with Barack Obama. Perhaps most serious are questions as to when ABC was using Debat as an information source and when he was a reporter paid by the network. It is clear that his producers loved some of the sensational stories he covered about "possible" post 9/11 terrorist plans. It is also fact that Debat was on the payroll of ABC and a necon think tank at the same time. [Debat was] quoted and used as a source for multiple post-9/11-related stories for the rest of 2001 and much of 2002, finally officially earns the title "ABC News consultant" in addition to "former French Defense Ministry official" in a story about how Zacharias Moussaoui, the infamous "20th hijacker" - according to "French intelligence authorities," which in this case appears to be, well, Debat - was actually "part of a second wave of suicide hijackings planned for early 2002 in Europe and the United States." Read <http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/09/special-report-.html> more.. Is it any wonder that the blogs are taking over journalism? I can't imagine any blogger getting away with making up an interview with Barack Obama. Blog readers would catch that before you could say "the audacity of hope." Perhaps viewers who get their news primarily from television are more passive and therefore have lower standards? Naah. http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/09/special-repor-1.html Special Report: NPR Goes Easy on ABC News Spokesman in Debat Affair Editor's Note: This is the second in a series of posts on ABC News' Alexis Debat scandal (all background information is <http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/09/special-report-.html> here, which includes some updates to the original post). While this story disappeared in the mainstream media over a week ago and, largely, in the alternative/progressive media as well, MediaBloodhound's coverage will be ongoing. One of the worst breaches of journalistic standards in U.S. history demands much more attention than this surreal but all-too-real tale has received. Over the weekend, NPR's often excellent program On the Media aired two interviews concerning the Alexis Debat scandal at ABC News. One featured journalist <http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/21/segments/85953> Laura Rozen, who, as national security correspondent for Mother Jones and on <http://www.warandpiece.com/> warandpiece.com, has led the way on this story in the U.S. (and, personally, has been of great help in confirming aspects of this scandal about which I've written).The other featured ABC News vice president and spokesman <http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2007/09/21/segments/85955> Jeffrey Schneider. Bob Garfield hosted both. If you've been keeping up with this story, Garfield's segment with Rozen sheds no new light, but does a fine job in providing an overview of flim-flam artist Alexis Debat. Its one glaring weakness is Garfield's failure to address ABC News' culpability in both being bamboozled by Debat and having created and sanctioned the shady news-gathering environment in which he operated. Giving Garfield the benefit of the doubt, one might argue he was saving those questions for ABC's Mr. Schneider. Unfortunately, he also fails to substantively challenge the ABC News spokesman on these points. The following is the full but brief transcript (the segment was only about 5-6 minutes) of the interview with Schneider, along with my responses: BOB GARFIELD, HOST: When ABC News learned of Debat's bogus Ph.D. last May, the network swiftly fired him. It also scrutinized the stories in which Debat had served as a source, but did not find any inaccuracies. This week, in response to news that Debat faked not only his credentials but entire interviews, ABC has opened a second, more extensive investigation into all the stories he touched. But unlike The New York Times after Jayson Blair or USA Today after Jack Kelly, ABC is working internally and has no plans for an outside investigation. Jeffrey Schneider is senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News. He says his company is determined to get to the bottom of the Debat problem. JEFFREY SCHNEIDER, ABC SPOKESMAN: I could understand why people might want a third party to look at these things. And it's impossible for me at this point to say whether that would be something that could happen. I do, however, have great confidence in our ability to, I think, answer these questions to the satisfaction of ourselves and to our audience. No follow-up from Garfield. ABC News relied on someone for six years who's been proven to be a fraud. In hiring Debat, it failed to even verify the most basic information on his resume, such as his fabricated Ph.D. from the Sorbonne and greatly embellished "French Defense Ministry official" position (which, via the French government, the French news service AFP confirmed was a fiction back in 2002). Moreover, as Laura Rozen <http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/09/abc-debat.html> reported in Mother Jones, two journalists familiar with Debat's work portray the leader of ABC News' investigative unit, Brian Ross, "not only as the victim of Debat's alleged deceptions, but as an enabler, who has promoted sensational stories-including some that Debat brought the network-at the expense at times of rigorous journalism standards." I don't doubt your "great confidence" to answer these questions to ABC News' satisfaction, Mr. Schneider. Quite the opposite. Nor do I doubt your same confidence in answering these questions to the satisfaction of your audience - especially because ABC News has failed to report this scandal on air (more on this below); consequently, having kept your audience almost completely in the dark, quelling their concerns should be a less than formidable task. Rather, considering ABC's negligent track record with regard to Alexis Debat, on what basis should anyone else have confidence in your internal investigation? BOB GARFIELD, HOST: Now, other news organizations when they discover that they have a liar in their ranks, there, at some point, tends to be disclosure to the audience. In what form has your disclosure taken place? JEFFREY SCHNEIDER, ABC SPOKESMAN: At the time that we demanded his resignation, you know, we did not ring the bell loudly. Obviously against the backdrop of these outright fabrications, you would say, you know, "How could ABC not have stood up and said very loudly, you know, this guy lied on his resume?" All I can tell you is at the time we felt that demanding his resignation and getting it was appropriate. Again, no follow-up from Garfield. The answer to his question? ABC News has yet to offer such an official disclosure to its audience. ABC News online, on its investigative unit's The Blotter, has posted two entries pertaining to Debat's faked interviews, but it provides little to no information on Debat's prominent and unethical role at ABC News for the prior six years. To date, ABC has not only failed to officially disclose the details of this scandal to its audience, but also to even report the story on its evening news broadcast, World News, on which some of the biggest Debat-contributed scoops aired. GARFIELD: There's one particularly sensitive story I want to ask you about in which Debat played a role. And that was the report that Pakistani militants, who had been involved in cross-border skirmishes in Iran, had been "secretly encouraged and advised by American officials." A story that suggests that, at least by one or two degrees of separation, the United States is involved in trying to overthrow a government. SCHNEIDER: You know, that is a story that we worked on for several months, five or six months is my understanding. Debat's information was a piece of that story, but by no means did the story stand on Debat's information. We have very good sources both in European and U.S. intelligence and governments. You know, at the end of the day, we want to be the first to report that there's a problem with that story. So far, through the two reviews we've done, we don't find that problem. But we sure are looking hard. Once more, no follow-up. Could you please tell us, Mr. Schneider, which piece of that story, then, was Debat's? Secondly, did it check out? GARFIELD: You know, in the end, Jeffrey, I suppose it's hard for any news organization to protect itself against a liar. What will you do in the future in the hiring of consultants, and maybe just, uh, reporters and producers as well, to make sure that their resumes actually hold up and that they are what they claim to be? That's quite a softball. I don't blame Mr. Schneider for overswinging. SCHNEIDER: You're right, Bob. If somebody is willing to lie to your face, that does create a difficult situation. It's also complicated by the fact that time and again he had good information. And not only did he have good information, occasionally he would stand in the way of our other reporting, saying, you know, "I know that's not the case. Don't report that." Particularly there was the issue of this terrorist from Amman being taken into custody supposedly, and Debat waved us off the story. And some weeks later, after we had actually reported that this guy was in custody, it became clear that he was not in custody. You know, he clearly did lie, and was a liar about many things, and yet he did provide solid information that other sources we're happy to confirm. It's, uh, it's really appalling and tragic and, you know, at the same time it's a pretty interesting story that we want to get to the bottom of. Last but not least, no follow-up. First, from the beginning, ABC News' failure to verify Debat's background, coupled with the network's unethical use of his services, has also been "appalling." Most of us have seen better vetting of a resume for, say, a low-level desk job. But to fail so miserably at vetting the CV for such a powerful position at ABC News - one in which Debat would contribute to stories with national security implications that, among other potentialities, might ultimately influence peace or war between nations - is a monumental blunder. What's more, Debat's dubious multifarious role as attributed source, anonymous source, reporter and analyst is such a patent transgression of sacrosanct journalism standards, it's surprising Garfield never touches on this. (Did he fail to do his homework with regards to this point, or was there some agreement between Garfield/On the Media and Schneider that this topic would not be addressed?) Moreover, on its face, Schneider's reply is contextually absurd: "If somebody is willing to lie to your face, that does create a difficult situation." Well, yes. But that's part of what's supposed to separate a gullible average Joe from an experienced, capable investigative news team. Which is not to say mistakes still won't be made. ABC News' handling of Alexis Debat, however, reveals not an honest mistake or two, but widespread institutionalized dysfunction. Finally, while Schneider provides a portrait of Debat's once seeming impeccable reliability as a defense for ABC News having been fooled, he unwittingly further exposes the systemic problems of his network's news-gathering process. If ABC News had reason to put so much trust in Debat and his information, then why did it ignore his vehement warning that the Amman story was untrue? Why didn't this compel ABC News to check and recheck the story - which, logically, would include verifying Debat's separate information - before running it? Again, that's not a Debat problem; that's an ABC News problem. In some instances, we already have evidence that suggests, at times, ABC News failed to confirm information obtained solely by Debat from his sources (ostensibly, that's why Brian Ross' producer Rhonda Schwartz is currently trekking around tribal areas in Pakistan). But this comment from Schneider appears to suggest that in other cases, as with the Amman story, even when ABC News rejected information acquired by Debat, it still failed to verify his sources' information. Such unethical and sloppy standards and practices would only give more weight to the allegations that ABC News' investigative unit was more concerned with playing the hot hand - the one with the bigger scoop wins - than it was in presenting factually accurate news stories. Lastly, Schneider either fails to realize, or refuses to acknowledge, something else one might glean from his Amman anecdote: that Debat may have used such moments to trumpet the quality and dependability of his information in order to influence a more lax vetting of his stories in the future. Sort of the reverse tactic employed by a pool shark or ringer: rather than lead with his worst effort to lure gullible amateurs into eventual high-stakes losses, it's possible that Debat fed ABC News some stellar verifiable nuggets (received from high-ranking neocons who <http://www.attytood.com/2007/09/the_neocon_link_to_the_abc_new.html> played a role in his post-9/11 ascension?) in order to gain their confidence and push through future unchecked, or shoddily vetted, scoops. Maybe this was Debat's game plan before he even walked through the doors at ABC back in 2001. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is, ABC News should have verified Debat's sourced information regardless of his track record - but especially considering the inherent ethically challenged role in which he operated for the network. GARFIELD: All right, Jeffrey, thanks again. SCHNEIDER: Thanks a lot, Bob. Take care. GARFIELD: Jeffrey Schneider is the senior vice president and spokesman for ABC News. And he and his network are still getting away with painting Debat as a lone wolf. Sarah Baxter, Washington http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
