Michael Gordon (NYT co-writer with Judith Miller on hyping the Iraq War ) has another blame and hate-Iran piece in NYT: U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.’s
This is the first paragraph of original version of the article published in the New York Times:
Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today.
This was how the article ended :
But military officials say that there is such a long and systematic pattern of Quds Force activity in Iraq, as well as a 2005 confidential American protest to Iranian leaders regarding Iran's alleged supply of road-side bombs, that senior Iranian leaders must be aware of the Quds Force role in Iraq.
"Our intelligence reveals that the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity," he said. When he was asked if Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be unaware of the activity, General Bergner said "that would be hard to imagine."
Gordon's NYT article was subsequently edited substantially, as including several statements that cast doubt on the military's claims. None of these facts were included in the original version:
Previously, Iranian officials have said that the United States is fabricating evidence to back up its accusation that Iran is sending bombs and weapons into Iraq. Some critics have cast doubt on the American military statements about the penetrator bombs, saying the evidence linking them to Iran was circumstantial and inferential.
In remarks that were reported over the weekend, Iran's defense minister, Mohammad Najar, denied American claims of Iran's "military interference" in Iraq. "We have many times announced that we are ready to cooperate with the Iraqi government so to restore security and stability to that country," Mr. Najar was quoted as saying in a July 1 report by the Iranian student news agency, ISNA. It did not make clear which remarks he was responding to.
The revised article also now refers to the accusations from the U.S. military as "assertions by the American military spokesman."
Glen Greenwald notes, "Though there are far more facts that ought to be reported ... including the fact that such accusations have been denied not only by the Iranians, but also by the Iraqi government, various U.S. military officials and multiple foreign policy experts -- the editorial changes to Gordon's article are clearly improvements."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/02/gordon/index.html .
Greenwald points out Gordon's only source for this piece is a "military spokesman" Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner. The There are no other sources or viewpoints present. Gordon's article is , in fact, a copy of the Camp Victory U.S. military press release. Greenwald doesn't write of the background of Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner. Who is Bergner?
Kevin J. Bergner was named February 3, 2006, by President George W. Bush as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq. Brigadier General Bergner recently served as Deputy Director of Political-Military Affairs (Middle East) at the Department of Defense. He received his bachelor's degree from Trinity University and his master's degree from City University of New York. (sourcewatch)
Berger left the White House and became spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq just three weeks ago. It is likely that Bergner's statement, which Gordon stenographed without comment originated in the Washington . This blame-Iran propaganda, the accusation of direct, official Iranian military intervention in Iraq, is originating from within the Bush administration. It is fed through a "military spokesman" who just left the White House to Michael Gorden who's editors originally published it unfiltered in the New York Times, without citing any other sources or commentary.
Given the schemes we know from the start of the Iraq war disinformation campaign, the next step is obvious. Someone from Bush's administration will appear on television and will cite and confirm Gordon's New York Times reporting as proof for Iran's "bad intent".
In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Michael Gordon of The New York Times wrote one of the most discredited, journalistically irresponsible, and damaging articles of the last decade -- a September 8, 2002, front-page article, co-authored with Judy Miller, which, in the first sentence, "reported" that "Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today." The article continued: "In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes." On the day that article was published, Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and he specifically cited Gordon and Miller's article as "evidence" that Saddam was pursuing nuclear weapons.
CNN ran much the same story Michael Gorden filed yesterday. CNN's Michael Ware in Baghdad and the studio anchors expressed little doubt that all they have been told is "true." According to CNN a "Lebanese Hizbullah fighter" got caught in Iraq and "did confess in interrogations ." AP filed a similar version, repeating Bergner's Camp Victory press briefing.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
It is true that many reporters on Iraq are banned from being in the country and those that are in Iraq are restricted in their movements and heavily censored, there still are some who manage to evade the control of the US military and government and post on the internet.
Three carrier battle groups on station, and a fourth on the way. Stay tuned.
We live in a time when conflict is now much more likely to be waged within states—particularly as a state collapses—or between a state and non-state actors. And the stresses the global system has been subjected to will only increase as larger portions of the developing world—especially Latin America, Africa and the vast interiors of the major Asian powers like China and India—become integrated into the global system. And as we've seen, even in a country like Iraq, the United States—on its own—cannot secure every border, inspect every cargo, staff every school, man every checkpoint. Increasingly, power, in a broad sense, resides more in the collectivity of states rather than in the hands of any individual power.
The world is not susceptible to U.S. domination—but without U.S. leadership not much can be achieved."
- "The Dispensable Nation?," Brent Scowcroft . He served as national security advisor to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush.
Yes, we all know that we have the firepower to utterly destroy others IF we really wanted to unleash it ... but where would that get anyone in the long run ?
Many here on Gather seem to recommend it, to get it all over with once and for-all ... or so they seem to think. But I think that we all know deep down inside that there are limits on what we should do ... even though we 'could' do.
Which brings me (of course) to the Spiritual component of all of this ... there IS IMnsHO, a spiritual realm very much lovingly related to each and every one of us that allows us to 'compete' to our hearts desire as we do ... they position 'things' so that no one gets the upper hand too far to tip the scales to a single 'winner' ... it ain't never going to happen because it is up to us to beat our heads against each other until we figure out the futility of it all ... only when we come to the realization of the way things really work ... that we are not separate units of any kind that can ever become an uncontested 'winner' and dominate others forever, will we ever get the 'spiritual help', which surely awaits us, to find the lasting peace that is there waiting for us all.
The point being, there are other realms and dimensions of intelligent 'beings' involved in ALL of this ... the sooner we come to some kind of realization to the truth of the 'larger' picture ... real rewards await us all ...
On the same token, if we as a world do not learn this, those responsible will be required to reincarnate into similar lives that take up the basics where they left off ... IF the world takes their (our) present thinking and intentions into outer space ... with concepts of weapons systems, wars and future conflicts ... THAT will be the reality for those so desiring ... and/or those so fearful that they never learn to trust and really love.
The choices are ours, deny at your own potential peril ...
Many who have stated their 'disbelief' in a story widely published across the globe with numerous credible media outlets are the very ones who publish reports based on PrisonPlanet.com and 'credible' sites where the conspiracist never leaves their own basement.
At some point you will have to admit to yourself that the Mullahs and Iranian leadership are not Mother Theresa reincarnated…they have 'meddled' in Lebanon, pushed terrorism in Israel and are playing a negative role in Iraq. They are far from the only 'issue' the US faces there, but they are playing the role of instigator and even participant…to try and deny this is simply ignorant.
I'm not ignoring Iran's behavior or ours. I am well-informed on the history (some classified information) of our relations since I first did research there in the 1960's. For the past decade there have been missed opportunities to establish normal relations, and a number of our best foreign policy analysts have made the case it was our long term interest to have better relations with Iran. Our foreign policy since 2000 , not just toward Iran, has been counterproductive. The portrayal of Iran as a threat to its neighbors and to us is not realistic , and the regime change rhetoric , supporting of terrorist actions, military threats etc is poor strategy. Normal diplomacy, which does not sacrifice any power or require any concessions is needed.
IF we ever come to know and accept that fact maybe we will demand more from those that lead us and the rest of the world will begin to appreciate what we 'think' we are (should be like) and there will be less problems overall to contend with. The truth (no matter what) will set us free eventually, continuing lies will not.
I guess nice would have to be defined. If we look at governments throughout recorded time, can we truly say any have been 'nicer' to the rest of the world than the US has been? Does our foreign diplomacy look to further our own aims, of course it does. But again, name me one government in history who has not practiced this doctrine in their foreign relations.
You state that you are not ignoring Iran's behavior, but many of you are quick to dismiss anything negative reported about them. Again, I am under no delusion that the US is some shining knight in all of this...but there are numerous countries who make us appear as such in comparison...
action against Iran, including distorting Iran's official statements on its policy
(and badly mistranslating Ahmadinejad's political rhetoric - he does not have
the authority to determine Iran's policy).
Our moral stature in the world has been disgraced in the view of many Americans,
including the most conservative. This was one point made in the Establishment study by the Baker Iraq Study Group and their recommendations stress the importance of diplomacy.
Does anyone have a better 'word' to use ... common you who I speak of, tell me how you should be addressed ...
Well that is a silly question...if you do not compare behaviors to others how could you ever gauge right from wrong or determine 'good from evil' as it were. If believing that the US, while not perfect is still one of the 'best games in town' is being an apologist, then so be it. Would that make you a 'terrorist apologists'?
I have not seen a mass of media calling for war with Iran. By reporting stories unfavorable to Iran by pointing out their involvement with terrorists in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq does not equal a drive to war...but if 'terrorist apologists?' would like to continue their denial, then no amount of proof will ever be enough.
Or are you one of those that takes guidance from the Bill O'Reillys of the world, that tell the sheeple followers who and what to think ... such as all to the left of him are secular progressives, and therefore next to far left liberal loonies ... including the main stream media ... ???
As for the calling for war with Iran ... it starts smaller with the propaganda brainwashing that most definitely HAS been going on for some time now ... but of course the neo-CON apologists say that it is all the truth and they want the rest of us to follow suit ... People do have the ability to think for themselves but they have been programed to not trust themselves, there are always 'specialists' that their 'leaders' will put up to be listened to and 'followed' ... get a real life !
Logically that is necessary...sorry but that is just a fact. Your intuition would have no idea what direction to lead you if you were not already consciously aware of your choices. Then, as expected, you determine that someone with an opposite opinion must be a sheep from the 'opposite' side of the perceived spectrum...
'it starts smaller with the propaganda brainwashing that most definitely HAS been going on for some time now ...'
By reporting the news? Just because you do not like the story or its implications does not make it propaganda. What are you basing your opinion on that it is all false? Or that the stories that proclaim America being an evil empire from are all true? Wouldn't they too have to be classified as propaganda? Or is it only the stories you don't like to hear about that fall into your category of propaganda?
I do not need orthodox authority to inform me of what 'they' want me to think ... the lifetime of propaganda brainwashing by 'them' did not 'take' with me.
Really? Naughty of them -- they shouldn't meddle and they have absolutely no business butting into our business in the region. Never mind that our appointed puppets in Baghdad would sooner do business with Iran -- and have been doing so. As for pushing terrorism in Israel, that is just the limit. We shall have to punish them.
Really? When was the last time you risked your life to vote in an election? Or that our politicians and their families face execution for simply participating in government? Call them puppets if it fits your ideological agenda, but to do so you minimize the risk that he voters (who turned out in greater numbers than US elections) and politicians who risk their lives to participate took to be there.
'As for pushing terrorism in Israel, that is just the limit. We shall have to punish them.'
So supporting terrorism is acceptable to you? Or is it just when it is against Jews that you look the other way?
Is it because you really and truly believe that they serve the will of the 'good' guys ... or is it just your team loyalty thing, having selected winners over loser ... ?
Do you REALLY believe those things you say, such as about the Iraqi government and the voter turnout ... if you do, you are just as gullible and naive as those voters were to think that their election was not rigged from the get go by those 'in charge' ('your' people).
The whole damn thing has been a huge charade to cover the real purpose of it all ... need I go there ? (PNAC).
Steve, you obviously do not have a clue about much of anything.
It is interesting that in spite of Senator Coleman's best efforts, the U.N. is still there [Bolton is not]. Of course, the Quartet is still the Quartet -- but the miserable mess in Iraq has changed the balance, even there. Notice you don't see much of Condi these days telling Congress that Iran simply won't negotiate about anything [no matter what anyone tells them] and that the road map to peace is at the top of her agenda [even though the Palestinians are terrorists--though the Fatah are now the 'good guy' terrorists]. Nor does she remind us these days that Chavez, the Thug, was actually at the head of her hit list, until Iraq got in the way. Perhaps they've decided that Venezuela is just a little too hot and a little too close to home to take on in their usual manner? We shall see how the 'blame game' goes -- in time for the elections of course.
Speaking of ideaology and terrorism, McCain's whack-a-mole concept is becoming funnier everyday -- if it weren't so gruesome.
Jerry, I think Steve thinks we're gullible and naive, along with the rest of the electorate -- or just willing to keep on looking the other way.
Have you ever actually read the PNAC 'plan' for Iraq? Or are you just again parroting what you have been fed? Because I can assure you what has happened in the past 4 years was not it…
Missy, the fact that you continue to defend Chavez and show admiration for him proves which one of us is gullible and naive. You are so blinded by your ideology that you cannot even recognize a dictator in the making...he is actually doing all the things that the two of you have dreamt up this administration to be trying. Naive indeed...
You did a nice dance around the question of you anti-Semitism. To even compare Palestine or Baghdad to the Holocaust truly displays your overall ignorance. To have you state I do not have a clue is a compliment.
Steve,
Naturally I considered the source when I ignored your "charge" of "supporting terrorism" and antisemitism. And, because you continue to demonstrate that you really do not have a clue, why ever would I give credence to anything you have to say about dictators in general, or Chavez [if he is] in particular -- much less the politics of Palestine and Israel.
Chavez is a bit of a fast talker -- but kinda looks like a big ol benign teddy bear -- now doesn't he? The kind of guy you'd like to sit down with and have a beer? Plus, he's got oil; and he wants to keep it. Is that what you mean when you say 'dictator in the making? Saddam, on the other hand, was vicious to his own people, but toothless overall [that's why we picked him]. You do know that we liked Saddam before we hated him [and that he was very useful to us] just one of the things, Steve, that many of us knew way before the Bushies started their crusade 'way back when' with Nixon and Daddy Bush.
You sound rather dictatorial yourself, Steve. What should be done about you? Glad you like the compliment and 'de baiting' with yourself about dictators-in-the-making and jews and antisemitism and terrorism and other timely things.
Missy too…talk around the points made and fall back to a Bush/Saddam or something else you feel more comfortable with...I did not state we should do anything about Chavez, just pointed out the hypocrisy of your past baseless criticisms of this administration and how they are all but a perfect fit for Venezuela's current regime…something you blatantly ignore.
On a side note, I did not directly address either of you initially and purposely waited for a couple days of inactivity on this thread to comment to Clarke. My point being I had no intention of debating with two brick walls :)
Baseless criticisms -- how dastardly, unamerican and antisemitic of me, and anyone else who dares to speak out, on history or contemporary events of fact. Off to GITMO for the wonderful lemon chicken dinner -- or off with our heads. Give me liberty or give me death, with lemon chicken dinner as my last meal. [Ah, but you do engage in baseless 'de bait' don't you -- and you deserve one of those special 'freedom medals.']