Very Amanpoor Reporting on Jihad

The left screams that the media has a rightist slant. Well, I've got at least one instance where that is not true. Christiane Amanpour did essentially everything she could to misrepresent the truth in a recent CNN program entitled God's Warriors

Prior to its airing on CNN, it was said of God's Warriors by the Associated Press that

Understanding is what Amanpour is trying to promote in "God's Warriors," which takes up six prime-time hours on CNN this week.

Please...don't insult our intelligence. When someone tries to promote understanding, they try to get their facts straight. Not only did she create a great deal of misunderstanding, she caused a great deal of unneeded animosity.

One can dispute why radical Islam is so violent, but it is beyond dispute that

It is "deeply false," to equate "Jewish (and Christian) religious fervency with that of Muslims heard endorsing 'martyrdom,' or suicide-killing. There is, of course, no counterpart among Jews and Christians to the violent jihadist Muslim campaigns underway across the globe...

I wrote about this several months ago in The First Jewish Suicide Bomber. My point: there is yet to be one.

Jews and Christians, as compared to radical Muslims, almost never resort to violence to get their points across.

Much of the segment God's Christian Warriors deals with a man named Ron Luce, depicting him as representative of Christians. Ron who? I've been a Christian (Mormon) for 44 years, and I've never heard of him. I didn't check, but perhaps one of Ms. Amanpour's "fact checkers" was Rosie O'Donnell.

But much of the rest of "God's Christian Warriors" depicts the ministry of Ron Luce. His priority is battling what he views as an amoral popular culture. There's footage of one of Luce's "Battle Cry" youth rallies, which took place in San Francisco in March; in an understated and effective way, the documentary depicts how the two-day event used all the trappings of an extravagant rock concert to condemn most aspects of modern culture (of which rock concerts are part).

Amanpour made more than a few factually incorrect statements on the program, which can't do well to soften the angered feelings between Christians and Muslims and well as Jews and Muslims. For example, HonestReporting notes the following inaccuracy:

Amanpour does not hesitate to inject her own views, demonstrating occasional lack of knowledge. For example when an Israeli settler said God says Jews must live in Hebron, Amanpour interjected that the West Bank was designated by the UN to be the largest part of an Arab state. Not only is this statement factually incorrect, it is out of context. Amanpour is evidently unaware that all Arab states rejected UN partition resolution 181, to which she evidently referred and that the West Bank was included in the area designated for encouragement of Jewish settlement by the Balfour Declaration and even endorsed in article 6 of the British mandate.

The program also tended to be historically very out of context.

One of the most misleading aspects of the program, was the use of the very few isolated incidents of Jewish terror attempts over the past 15 years, to create the false impression that a Jewish terror movement exists on a par with the violent worldwide jihadist phenomenon of indiscriminate death and destruction.

I'm not sure whether Christiane Amanpour had a motive for the plethora of inaccuracies in her series, God's Warriors, nor if she did, what that motive would be. She's married to a former Clinton Administration official, but I'm not sure how that would play into the factual bias, except that Bill Clinton made a somewhat applicable statement at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, claiming that right-wing Christian fundamentalism and talk-show hosts had created the environment in which such a bombing could have occurred.

But at least, if Christiane Amanpour does not have a motive for her inaccuracies, her professionalism calls on her to recognize those untruths and apologize for them.

Especially in issues so volatile, factuality is critical. False statements purported as fact can have the same effect as swords, rockets, and bombs.

"A Perpetual State of War"

Of the issues on which I agree and disagree with former Vice President Al Gore in his new book The Assault on Reason, one to which I highly subscribe is the unhealthiness of being in "a perpetual state of war" with terrorism.

Sometime in late 2002 I remember hearing a radio news report wherein it was suggested that if we attacked Iraq, it would be likely that we would have to occupy it for up to 12 years. How strange, then, that it turns out that the Bush Administration did not have a post-invasion plan to undergo a successful occupation of the country.

Several members of Congress asked the Bush administration what its occupation plan was for Iraq.

...Secretary Rumsfeld said that he wasn't certain we would have any responsibility at all. "That's for the Iraqis to come together and decide," Rumsfeld said. At that very moment, we now know, he was attempting to shut down the program at the U.S. Army War College that was focused on post-invasion stabilization. (Gore, p. 190)

Others in the Bush administration said that the Iraq invasion and regime change would be a cakewalk. Surely, they knew better.

In The Assault on Reason, Al Gore makes this statement:

[If we subscribe to] the idea that we have entered a perpetual state of war, the implications of this theory stretch as far into the future as we can imagine. These claims must be rejected, and a healthy balance of power restored to our Republic. Otherwise, the fundamental nature of our democracy may well undergo a radical transformation. (p. 226)

If for no other reason than that Gore's statement is a challenge to all future presidential administrations, I find his statement very enlightening and profound. But it's more than that. It teaches (reminds?) us that we can't afford to elect establishmentarians to office. The perpetual state of increasing government--choreographed by background shadow puppeteers--in the United States makes me wonder how much differently Al Gore would have acted had he been president on 9/11. The fact that Al Gore was Vice President in an administration that gave a great deal of military and other concessions to the Chinese adds to my hypothesis, but for my current purposes, I will simply say that I agree completely with the above-quoted statement.

The fact that I opposed the Iraq invasion in the first place has been detailed in these pages. The negative ramifications of the invasion are becoming all the more apparent as the days and months go by. But regardless of whether we supported the invasion or not, the main focus of our criticism--now that we are there--is why we haven't done of better job of achieving our goals. (Sort of reminds me of a border fence that hasn't been built yet...)

Most negative ramifications of our Iraq invasion and occupation accrue due to the inelegant way the Bush administration 'planned' for the post-invasion. If plans had been made, my opinion is that the country would have been stabilized by now. But I am subscribing ever more readily now to a personal theory that 'no plan' was the plan.

How do we square the statements that we would be in Iraq for 12 years with administration statements that it will be a cakewalk, and that we don't need to plan for occupation? It can only be squared in the desire for the Bush administration to be in a perpetual state of war.

All of you who voted for president Bush were stupid. If you did it twice, you're really stupid (unless you've repented, as I know some of you have). Let's hope that the next administration turns back the tidal wave of executive branch power accretions. Incidentally, there are several candidates for president in both major parties whom we cannot hope to expect will turn back that tide. Perhaps not surprisingly, those candidates are indicated in national polls as being the most popular candidates for their political parties. Who makes these polls? Are they accurate? Are we really still that stupid?

How perpetually unfortunate.

"Desert Fox" and the Absence of WMD

The timing of the attack was extremely suspicious, but in retrospect, Clinton's decision to attack Iraq's military infrastructure in 1998 is probably a major reason that we did not find much in the way of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq in 2003.

'Everyone' knows who Monica Lewinsky is. But not nearly as many know what Operation Desert Fox was. They happened at the same time, and the latter was thought by many to be nothing more than a cover by President Clinton of the scandal created by his involvement with the former.

Beginning on December 16, 1998, a three-day missile and bombing campaign, known as Operation Desert Fox, struck 97 separate sites in Iraq, most of which were believed to contain weapons of mass destructions, their precursors, and/or the facilities to create them. Some sites struck during the bombing were command and control sites.

At the time, President Clinton was being impeached. I thought, and many Republican politicians expressed their opinions that, the strikes were a way for Clinton to divert attention from himself. They really probably were, but the end result is interesting just the same. The strikes were probably more of a 'card up Clinton's sleeve'.

David Kay had been a senior weapons inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency, and in 2003 entered Iraq as a representative of the United States with a fair amount of confidence that WMD would be found. Some of them may have been whisked off to other places, but not enough to make a huge difference. At any rate, WMDs were not found, and Kay counted himself among those surprised by this turn of events.

In reality, the timing was probably more fortuitous for Clinton than suspect. On December 15, 1998 a UN report stated that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. The next day, the US attacked. Coincidentally, a month prior to the strikes, Clinton hinted that Saddam Hussein needed to be replaced.

The results of the missile and air strikes was beyond anyone's imagination. It nearly had the single-handed effect of ruining the Hussein regime. In his book The Threatening Storm, Kenneth Pollack wrote:

Saddam panicked during the strikes. Fearing the his control was threatened, he ordered large-scale arrests and executions, which backfired and destabilized his regime for months afterward.

Intelligence sources in and around Iraq confirmed that there was "palpable fear that he was going to lose control." Ironically, a sentiment that was apparently completely lost on the Bush administration, leaders of other governments in the Middle East worried greatly at the prospects of Saddam's overthrow. You topple this guy, you'd better have a good plan in place, they said. Otherwise the whole region could descend into chaos.

Based on David Kay's research in 2003 in Iraq, his conclusion was that Desert Fox completely threw Saddam's WMD capability on its head. A high-level Iraqi energy official surrendered early on and explained that after 1998, Iraq had almost no ability to produce WMD's despite all of Saddam's bluster to the contrary.

al Qaeda and Iraq: A Connection? Clinton Says Yes

Conventional liberal opinion blames the Bush Administration for inventing a tie between Iraq and al Qaeda. Why, then, is 'conventional memory' so short as to forget that the Clinton Administration had the same fear?
Read Part 1 of this Series: al Qaeda and Iraq: A Connection?
Potential terrorism involving al Qaeda and Iraq were alive and well during the Clinton Administration. With regard to these two threats, Daniel Benjamin, one of President Clinton's terrorism experts, said:

Nothing concerned the Clinton Administration more than the dangers of WMD proliferation and the possibility of these terrible weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists.

The Tokyo subway sarin gas attack had just occurred, killing 12 people.

As early as 1995, Sudan began to establish a chemical weapons program. It's primary assistant in the fledgling process was Iraq. This was intended to help Iraq

circumvent the the UN's military and trade embargo on Iraq.

As UN inspections of Iraq began to run into stiff resistance in late 1997, and as Saddam Hussein began to breathe out more threatenings against "American and British interests" in early 1998, President Clinton presented an ominous outlook to the country.

There is no more clear example of this threat [of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons] than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

Less than a week following Clinton's February 1998 remarks about Iraq's activities, Osama bin Laden issued a fatwah against the United States and her allies, coming to the defense of Iraq.

In its November 24th, 1997 issue, Time magazine spoke of

the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them. It wouldn't take much. This is the poor man's atom bomb. A gram of anthrax culture contains a trillion spores, theoretically enough for 100 million fatal doses. The stuff can be spread into the air with backpack sprayers or even perfume atomizers. The U.N.'s specialists say that 100 lbs. of anthrax bacteria sprayed around a city of 1 million could kill 36,000 people within a week.

ABC News details in March of 2006 that, among other things, pre-war documents obtained by American forces in Iraq indicate that:

"Osama bin Laden Contact With Iraq"

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

...

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith...

On August 20, 1998, Tomahawk missiles struck two targets: (1) an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan (the missiles missed their target, as a terrorist summit there had been postponed), and (2) the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, in which Iraq had allegedly been helping to create chemical weapons.

Clinton Administration Undersecretary of State, Thomas Pickering said at the time:

We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, el Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe, were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.

Even further, the Clinton Administration first made the claim that al Qaeda and Iraq had a relationship. Then Secretary of Defense William Cohen, being questioned by the 9/11 commission on March 23, 2004 about the bombing of the al Shifa plant, had this to say:

Now, I was criticized for that, saying, you didn't have enough. And I put myself in the position of coming before you and having someone like you say to me, "Let me get this straight, Mr. Secretary, we've just had a chemical weapons attack upon our cities or our troops and we've lost several hundred or several thousand. And this is the information which you had at your fingertips. You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances, had you manager that went to Baghdad, you had Osama bin Laden who had funded at least the corporation, and you had traces of EMTA and did you what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the Secretary of Defense?" [Emphasis added.]

I agree with Secretary Cohen and the Clinton Administration. It is irresponsible to categorically dismiss the possibility that Iraq and al Qaeda had a relationship, especially when they were working in the same country to build chemical weapons.

Read Part 1 of this Series: al Qaeda and Iraq: A Connection?