Cockburn
/ St. Clair's Scorching New History of a Decade of War
Now Available!
Today's Stories
June 26 / 27, 2004
Alexander Cockburn
Venezuela: the Gang's All Here
June 25, 2004
Stephen
Gowans
US to North Korea: "Trust Us"
Saul Landau
2006 Pentagon Budget as Sacrilege: Bush
Invests the National Treasure in Death and Destruction
Amir
Butler
Iraq: the Deadly Embrace
Jack McCarthy
Another Times Plagiarism Scandal? Did
Maureen Dowd Lift from the World Weekly News?
Greg
Bates
Chomsky and Zinn Plan to Vote Nader
June 24, 2004
Gary Leupp
John
Lehman on the Iraq / al-Qaeda Links
Patrick Cockburn
A
Day in the Life of Col. Abu Mohammed: Defusing Bombs, Facing
Death Threats
Harry Browne
On
the Rebound: Bush Bounces Back...in Europe
Bill Kaufman
Another
Marxist for Kerry: Joel Kovel's Sad Smear of Ralph Nader
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush,
Cheney and the 9/11 Commission: What Did They Know? What Did
They Tell?
Rick Gioimbetti
Andrea Yates: Victim of Psychiatric Violence?
John Chuckman
Call Center ID Hypocrisy
Diane Johnstone
Kerry
and Kosovo: the Lie of a "Good War"
June 23, 2004
Laura Carlsen
Bush
and Castro Face Off
Dave Zirin
Barry
Bonds vs. Boston: "A Flea Market of Racism"
Kurt Nimmo
From
Saddam, With Love
Patricia Wolff
Foundation Wars
Mahboob A. Khawaja
"They Had Me Arrested and Shackled My Son"
Patrick Cockburn
The
Pretense of an Independent Iraq
Website of the Day
The Road to Abu Ghraib
June 22, 2004
Dave Lindorff
The
Meaning of Putin's Pronouncement: Mutually Assured Pre-emption
Ron Jacobs
Nuclear Plants in US Protectorate of Iraq?
Vanessa Jones
Coogee, Peter Garrett and Valium Earrings
Mickey Z
An Open Letter to the People of Iraq
John L. Hess
Clinton Exhales
Pedro Marset/Ex-Solidarity
Committee for Pacho Cortés
An Exchange on the Case of Pacho Cortés
Bruce Jackson
Saying
No to Prosecutors: Why Steve Kurtz's Colleagues Refused to Testify
Website of the Day
From Boot Camp to Boot Hill
June 21,
2004
Gary Leupp
Putin's Helpful Remarks
Lucson
Pierre-Charles
Haiti After the Press Went Home: Chaos
Upon Chaos
Cockburn
/ Khan
Saddam May Face Death Penalty
Uri
Avnery
Irreversible Mental Damage
June 19
/ 20, 2004
Patrick
Cockburn
Inside the Green Zone: US is Paranoid
and Isolated
Bruce
Anderson
Frozen Gringos
Diane
Christian
Morality and Death: a Meditation on
Bush and Blake
Walter
A. Davis
Passion of the Christ in Abu Ghraib
Josh
Frank
How Democrats Helped Bush Rape Mother Nature
Col. Dan
Smith
Respectable Genocide?: the Crisis in Sudan
Brian
Cloughley
A Profound Disruption of the Senses
Christopher
Brauchli
Bush and the Timken Plant, a Year Later
Prudence
Crowther
Mr. Ashcroft, Deport Me!
Poets'
Basement
Iqbal/Alam, Krieger and Albert
Kathy
Kelly
Dying to See Their Kids
June 18,
2004
Chris
Floyd
Blood Victory
Dave Zirin
Danielle Green, Basketball Player &
Disabled Vet, Speaks Out Against War
Justin
E.H. Smith
The Christian Question in American Politics
Gary
Leupp
The "Long-Established" Link?:
Iraq, al-Qaeda, and al-Zarqawi
June
17, 2004
Noel
Ignatiev
Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the People
of Palestine
Kurt
Nimmo
The Bush-Kerry Conundrum
Ed
Cardoni
The Persecution of Steve Kurtz
Ron Jacobs
Power Relations: Rounding Up Everyone Who Knows More Than They Do
Dave
Lindorff
Philly Daily News: "Four Wasted Years"
Greg
Moses
Geneva Ignored
Norm
Dixon
How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical
Weapons
June
16, 2004
Lenni
Brenner
A Question for Kerry Supporters
Davey
D
Hip Hop Reflections on Reagan
Daniel
Wolff
Why Did Michael Moore Withhold Video Evidence of US Prisoner
Abuse?
Bruce
Jackson
Harry Levin and the Penultimate Manuscript of Finnegans Wake
Patrick
Cockburn
Boom! Boom! Out Go the Lights: Bombings Target Oil and Power
Facilities
Gary
Handschumacher
Mourn Ben Linder, Not His Killer: Reagan's Death Squads
JG
Turning Haiti into One Big Sweatshop
Mario
Benedetti
Obituary with Cheers
Vicente
Navarro
Meet the New Head of the IMF: Who
is Rodrigo Rato?
Website
of the Day
Iraqi Oil Revenue Watch
June
15, 2004
Harry
Browne
Ireland Adds a Brick to Fortress Europe
Neve
Gordon
The Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited
David
Palmer
Richard Armitage, Abu Ghraib and CACI
John
Blair
Lovelock's Misguided Call: Nukes Are No Solution to Global Warming
Dave
Lindorff
God Wins in TKO
Bill
Quigley
Blood-Pouring Peace Activists: State Charges Dropped; Feds Step
In
Patrick
Cockburn
Carbombs and Street Dances: 13 More Killed in Baghdad Blast
John
Chuckman
John Kerry, Political Placebo
June
14, 2004
John
Stanton / Wayne Madsen
Torture, Inc: Oliver North Joins
the Party
Kathy
Kelly
Requiems: What Happens When Compassion Dies?
Bruce
Jackson
Bush Gets Testy About Torture
Lee
Sustar
Strikers Defy Visteon's Company Thugs
Kurt
Nimmo
The Desperate Censors: the Republican Plot to Kill Farhenheit
9/11
Jim
Davis
Hard Right Nativism
Eliot
Katz
Death and War
Uri
Avnery
The Nightmare Comes True
Website
of the Day
Instruments of Statecraft
June 12 / 13, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Remembering the Common Hood: Soweto
and Runnymede
Team
CounterPunch
CP's Favorite Albums
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Troy, Now and Then
Gary
Leupp
Not Really a Puppet Government in Iraq?
Brian
Cloughley
US Military in Crisis
Antonio
Ponvert, III
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse: the Connecticut Connection
Ben
Tripp
The Polls Get Stupider
Joe
Bageant
Mash Note to the "Girl with the Leash"
Ron
Jacobs
The Return of the Hip Hop Insurgency
Forrest
Hylton
Object Lessons from the Case of Francisco Cortés
Christopher
Brauchli
Federal Bureau of Errors
Kurt
Nimmo
Going After Qaddafi, Again
Wayne
Madsen
Israel's Slap at Reagan
Anthony
Loewenstein
Al Jazeera Awakens the Arab World
Michael
Donnelly
A Lightship in the Forest: Greenpeace Docks in the Siskiyous
Greg
Moses
Who Will Tell Us More About the Workers of Nasiriyah?
Susan
Davis
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
Joseph
Ramsey
Weather Report: a Review of The Weather Underground
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
The 18th Brumaire in the 21st
Century
Wayne
Saunders
The Gipper, D-Day and the Stanley Cup
Poets'
Basement
Richey, Ford, La Morticella, Albert
Website
of the Weekend
Insurgent Music
| Weekend
Edition
June 26 / 27, 2004
Once They
Were Sweathearts
Dick Cheney,
the New York Times and the Myth of the Iraq Connection to 9/11
By
DENNIS HANS
Fans
of romance are disheartened to see Vice President Dick Cheney lash out
at his long-time sweetie pie, the New York Times, for allegedly distorting
the findings of the 9-11 Commission to make it appear that it had contradicted
statements by Cheney and his boss about the relationship between Saddam’s
Iraq and al Qaeda.
It
seemed like only yesterday that Cheney and the Times strolled hand in
hand.
Harken
back to the summer of 2002. In August, Cheney delivered a scary speech
about Saddam’s programs for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
A couple weeks later, on Sept. 8, New York Times reporters Judith Miller
and Michael Gordon wrote a lurid (and now discredited) tale about aluminum
tubes and other things that gave
credence to Cheney’s warning. That very morning, Cheney popped
up on Meet the Press and cited the Times story as further evidence of
Saddam’s nuclear obsession!
“There's
a story in the New York Times this morning — this is — I
don't — and I want to attribute the Times,” said
Cheney. “I don't want to talk about, obviously, specific intelligence
sources, but it's now public that, in fact, he has been seeking to acquire,
and we have been able to intercept and prevent him from acquiring through
this particular channel, the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build
a centrifuge.”
Yes,
in 2002 Cheney and the Times were quite the item.
But
if you had been paying close attention, you already knew that. Cheney
and the Times first got together in 2001 — on the very story that’s
at the heart of the current spat: the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and
in particular, Iraq’s connection to 9-11.
In
the past few days Cheney has been trashed in the media — particularly
what passes for the “liberal” media — over an exchange
in a June 17, 2004 interview
with CNBC’s Gloria Borger. Have a listen:
Borger:
Well, let's get to Mohamed Atta for a minute because you mentioned
him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty
well confirmed."
Cheney:
No, I never said that.
Borger:
OK.
Cheney:
I never said that.
Borger:
I think that is...
Cheney:
Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported
after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9 of 2001, where
he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never
been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down,
we just don't know.
Alas,
as many have now pointed out, Cheney did say what Borger said he had
said. Here’s his
reply to Tim Russert on the Dec. 9, 2001 Meet the Press: “it's
been pretty well confirmed that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did
meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia
last April, several months before the attack.”
If
only Cheney had added, “I know the meeting has been confirmed
because the New York Times said so.” Why didn’t he? This
is pure speculation, but my guess is that back in 2001 Cheney simply
wasn’t ready to announce to the world that he and the Times were
sweethearts.
Six
weeks before Cheney’s interview with Russert, in the Oct. 27,
2001 New York Times, the headline declared: “Czechs
Confirm Iraqi Agent Met With Terror Ringleader.”
Alas,
there was one slight problem with the headline and the story, which
escaped the editors and the learning-disabled reporters, Patrick Tyler
and John Tagliabue: the Czechs didn’t “confirm” squat.
Rather, they SAID they had confirmed the meeting. That’s a huge
difference, one that would be obvious to a competent cub reporter —
but not to reporters and editors cut from the same gullible and/or servile
cloth as Judith Miller and Michael Gordon.
Littered
throughout the article are variations on the word “confirmed,”
but with nary a hint to the reader that nothing resembling confirmation
had been presented by the Czechs — no audio or video recordings;
no eyewitnesses, credible or otherwise; no visa or airline records indicating
Atta was in Prague when the purported meeting took place. U.S. and other
investigators had already turned up solid, tangible evidence of Atta’s
travels within the U.S. and around the globe, but neither they nor the
Czechs had yet to produce (and still haven’t) a paper trail for
Atta entering or exiting Prague in April 2001.
Nevertheless,
the Times reporters referred to the “official confirmation”
and “today’s confirmation.” They also wrote, “The
Czech authorities confirmed the meeting at a time of spirited debate
in the Bush administration over whether to extend the antiterrorism
military campaign now under way in Afghanistan to Iraq at some point
in the future.”
So
why did the Czechs “confirm” on Oct. 26 what they had previously
denied? Tyler and Tagliabue took off their “reporter” hats
and put on their “analyst” hats: “It was unclear what
prompted them to revise their conclusions, although it seemed possible
that American officials, concerned about the political implications
of Iraqi involvement in terror attacks, had put pressure on the Czechs
to keep quiet.”
That may be the silliest sentence the Times has ever published. The
reporters were suggesting that the Czechs had succumbed to U.S. pressure
in the weeks they were denying a meeting had occurred, but then mustered
the courage to resist the pressure and go public on Oct. 26 with their
(empty) proclamation of “confirmation.”
To
fully appreciate the daftness of Tyler and Tagliabue’s reasoning,
bear in mind that back on
Oct. 20 Tagliabue had reported at length on the Czechs’ inability
to confirm the swirling allegations of the meeting — and the advice
they had received from “Washington.”
“Czech officials,” wrote Tagliabue, “say they do not
believe that Mohamed Atta, suspected of having led the attack on the
World Trade Center, met with any Iraqi officials during a brief stop
he made in Prague last year. The officials said they had been asked
by Washington to comb their records to determine whether Mr. Atta met
with an Iraqi diplomat or agent here. They said they had told the United
States they found no evidence of any such meeting.”
Given
the sequence — the Czechs at first deny, then confirm —
and given the absence of tangible evidence when they did “confirm,”
one might wonder if the Czechs’ “confirmation,” rather
than the earlier denials, was the product of pressure (or bribes, cajoling
or begging) from U.S. officials or Prague-based CIA personnel. Not Tyler
and Tagliabue.
In
any event, the Oct. 27, 2001 story — and the failure of Tyler
and Tagliabue to express skepticism or require the Czechs to put up
or shut up — played a key role in creating the myth of the “Prague
Connection.” It allowed proponents of the Connection to either
pretend or genuinely believe that the meeting definitely took place,
which provided them the basis to speculate that Atta may have discussed
the planned attacks with an Iraqi agent, and if Atta did, then there
was a good chance that Saddam was aware of — and maybe in on —
the 9-11 attacks.
Thus,
the Times enabled Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney,
its own William Safire and other pundits and talking heads to spread
this myth, which partly explains why as late as August 2003, 69 percent
of the American people thought that Saddam was “somewhat likely”
or “very likely” to have been “personally involved”
in the 9-11 terrorist attacks (according
to this Washington Post poll).
The Times was not the only enabler. Consider the case of the bird-brained
Buffalo blowhard, Tim Russert.
Back
on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney didn’t offer his “pretty well confirmed”
comment out of the blue. He was responding to a question that Russert
prefaced with quotes. First, Russert reminded Cheney that on Sept. 16,
“five days after the attack on our country, I asked you whether
there was any evidence that Iraq was involved in the attack and you
said no. Since that time, a couple articles have appeared which I want
to get you to react to.” Next, Russert read from two articles,
the first of which was the Times Oct. 27 story. (According to the transcript,
Russert didn’t mention the Times. A tape of the show would reveal
if the quote and the source was displayed on the screen as Russert read
it.) Russert’s standards are revealed by the fact that he thought
it important to share with viewers the second quote, from a warmonger
with little credibility on Iraq (James Woolsey) published at a place
with even less credibility (the
oped page of the Wall Street Journal). As for the Times article,
Russert read the lead sentence:
"The
Czech interior minister said today that an Iraqi intelligence officer
met with Mohammed Atta, one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks on the United States, just five months before the synchronized
hijackings and mass killings were carried out."
Next,
Russert recited Woolsey’s reckless ramblings about what Iraqi
defectors and other sources had to say about an alleged Baghdad training
camp for terrorist hijackers. Russert then asked Cheney, “Do you
still believe there's no evidence that Iraq was involved in September
11?”
Why
do I call Russert “the bird-brained Buffalo blowhard”? He
interviewed Cheney on December 9. The Times story appeared October 27.
The Czechs didn’t produce any evidence in October. Nor in November.
Nor in the first nine days of December. A person billing himself as
a “journalist” might have begun to get curious. Not Li’l
Russ. Not the chip off of Big Russ’s block.
Consider
CNBC’s (and U.S. News and World Report’s) Borger. She had
Cheney’s 2001 quote, yet when he denied that he had said what
Borger KNEW he said, she let it slide. Granted, her spinelessness in
2004 played no role in spreading the Prague Connection fable in 2001-03,
but it is indicative of her, well, spinelessness.
In
my view, people like Borger, Russert, Tyler and Tagliabue have important
media jobs not in spite of their incompetence and servility but BECAUSE
of those qualities, which never go out of style. There’s always
a place in the corporate media for “journalists” who know
how to stay on the good side of powerful people who have the blessing
of the permanent Washington establishment.
But
what of our love birds — Cheney and the Times — and their
fractured nest? I do hope they stop this awful sniping. They’ve
been good for each other for far too long to simply walk away. It’s
not too late to rekindle the relationship that has served them (though
maybe not the country) so very well.
Dennis
Hans is a freelance writer who has taught American Foreign
Policy at the University of South Florida in St. Petersburg. His essays
have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald and
a host of places online. He can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu
Weekend Edition June 12 / 13, 2004
Peter
Linebaugh
Remembering the Common Hood: Soweto and Runnymede
Team CounterPunch
CP's Favorite Albums
Jeffrey
St. Clair
Troy, Now and Then
Gary Leupp
Not Really a Puppet Government in Iraq?
Brian
Cloughley
US Military in Crisis
Antonio
Ponvert, III
Iraqi Prisoner Abuse: the Connecticut Connection
Ben
Tripp
The Polls Get Stupider
Joe Bageant
Mash Note to the "Girl with the Leash"
Ron
Jacobs
The Return of the Hip Hop Insurgency
Forrest
Hylton
Object Lessons from the Case of Francisco Cortés
Christopher
Brauchli
Federal Bureau of Errors
Kurt Nimmo
Going After Qaddafi, Again
Wayne
Madsen
Israel's Slap at Reagan
Anthony
Loewenstein
Al Jazeera Awakens the Arab World
Michael
Donnelly
A Lightship in the Forest: Greenpeace Docks in the Siskiyous
Greg Moses
Who Will Tell Us More About the Workers of Nasiriyah?
Susan
Davis
Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
Joseph
Ramsey
Weather Report: a Review of The Weather Underground
Niranjan
Ramakrishnan
The 18th Brumaire in the 21st Century
Wayne
Saunders
The Gipper, D-Day and the Stanley Cup
Poets'
Basement
Richey, Ford, La Morticella, Albert
Website
of the Weekend
Insurgent Music
Keep CounterPunch
Alive:
Make
a Tax--Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links / |