"THE NEW WHIG"-ABC/Anthrax/Iraq-An epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intel-Larisa Alexandrovna

kpete

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-05-08 11:01 PM
Original message

"THE NEW WHIG"-ABC/Anthrax/Iraq-An epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intel-Larisa Alexandrovna

Edited on Tue Aug-05-08 11:55 PM by kpete

ABC's Sources on Anthrax/Iraq...

Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has made an excellent point about Brian Ross having to come clean and reveal his "four" sources. As Greenwald noted in a blog piece late last week:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html

"Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/ the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

<snip>

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross,
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/09/abc_anthrax/index.html
continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax-- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

I full agree with Glenn why ABC needs to come clean. A journalist has what is called a "good faith" agreement with their anonymous source. It is basically an understanding that the journalist will protect the source at all costs, including going to jail if need be and in exchange, the source will not intentionally mislead, lie, or in any way abuse the relationship. If the journalists violates this agreement, they will likely never work as a reporter again. If a source violates this agreement, the contractual understanding is discharged. In addition, if the public trust is violated so extremely or the public is in any way affected by the source's manipulation or dishonesty, then it is not only important for the journalists to unmask their sources, it is necessary.

Domestic propaganda is illegal, so abusing the journalist-source relationship is a good way to "launder" information/propaganda. I generally call this intelligence laundering. I said this same thing about Judith Miller, who instead of doing the ethical thing as a journalist, decided to protect her sources who were using her to launder talking points.

So, if Ross won't do the ethical thing, let's try resolve this ourselves

Source Characterization

Greenwald writes that Ross responded to demands he unmask his handlers as follows:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/04/anthrax/index.html

"As we reported more than six years ago our information came from current and former government scientists. The report was discointed and denied by the White House which we reported. I believe now the scientists got it wrong although they insisted they were correct long after."

I don't believe Ross' characterization of his sources is on the level. It entirely possible Ross is telling the truth, but I find it hard to believe. It is one thing to have multiple CIA sources, for example, as there are tens of thousands of people employed by the agency, and countless others formerly employed. By the same token, it is entirely reasonable to have 4 sources in DOD or DOJ. But to have four sources who are a). all experts in Anthrax, b). working in a field with only roughly 50-100 people in it, c). who all have access to a domestic terrorism investigation, d). who all made the same exact mistake, e). on something so specific, and f). and all chose Ross as the conduit is not possible.

There is, of course, the possibility that Ross is double-dipping as I like to call it. What I mean by this is when you have a small pool of people all talking to one another, you should count that as one source. As an example, consider a real life situation I have found myself in. A source and their lawyer wanted to be counted as 2 separate sources. The problem is that the latter is working for the former, representing the former, and discussing specifics with the former, so it is difficult to ascertain who actually knows what. When 2 sources are that close in the information pool, I always count them as a single source. It is possible that Ross' sources are a small group of scientists all talking among one another, with only one of them being an Anthrax expert. I simply don't know. The problem with this reasoning in the ABC case, however, is that the specific claims of Iraqi ties being made.

In addition, not only were the claims far too specific and entirely wrong, but people working on examining the Anthrax letters would be entirely cordoned off by the FBI, so no leaks could occur to compromise this investigation, a national security issue of the highest proportions. Think about the handling of the Robert Hanssen case as the perfect example of how an FBI investigation should be conducted in relation to minimizing leaks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

If Ross actually got 4 scientists to tell him this nonsense, then he is either stupid enough to take them at their word or was willing enough to be used. Either way, his own story does not hold up. The nature of the beast suggests a political agenda.

And it is precisely the nature of the beast that identifies the beast.

Ties to Iraq

What group of 4 people, either together or individually, would have such little ethics that they would politicize a domestic terrorism attack for a political agenda or leak information necessary (if it were right) to solving a domestic terrorist attack?

All we know is that we are looking for 4 people, current and former, officials a). in a position to know, so that ABC would take their claims b). all involved with one another, because the specificity of their error could not have happened otherwise, c). and all in intelligence and defense, because that is Ross' bread and butter.

There is, of course, a handful of people that were at work already on September 11, 2001 attempting to tie those attacks to Iraq.

First a caveat. This list is my own speculation. I do not claim to be right on any of this. There is, however, one way to find out for sure. These people can all be subpoenaed by Congress to make their denials.

Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:

(CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq � even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

That's according to notes taken by aides who were with Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center on Sept. 11 � notes that show exactly where the road toward war with Iraq began, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.(CBS)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml

If anyone could have ordered a military scientist to authenticate propaganda claims, it would be this upstanding citizen of Cheney Inc.

Former CIA Director, James Woolsey:

THE Taliban regime may be the current target in America's war on terrorism but the Bush administration is already building a case against a much bigger foe - Iraq.

James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA, ambassador and Pentagon official who now describes himself as a "private citizen", is the man entrusted with investigating Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks and anthrax outbreaks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1340799/Saddam-may-be-target-Americans-are-looking-for.html
The Iraqi National Congress, the exiled group that opposes Saddam Hussein, said it recently held meetings in London with Mr Woolsey. Administration sources have said his trip was funded and approved by Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary.

Such is the sensitivity of the Iraq issue, Mr Woolsey will make no comment about the exact nature of his brief. He told The Telegraph: "I was in London and that's it."

But he made clear that he believed there were "substantial and growing indications" that a state was behind the attacks.

The milled, "weaponised" anthrax that virtually shut down Congress and killed two postal workers has increased his suspicions. So too have reports of meetings involving Mohammad Atta, a leading hijacker, in Prague." (Telegraph).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1341111/US-points-finger-of-suspicion-at-%27rogue%27-states.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1360627/Building-the-case-against-Iraq.html

Woolsey would qualify as the "former government" source IMHO. Note with whom he meets in London, the very same people that would go on to help "fix the facts" to get us into Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_National_Congress
The Iraqi National Congress was Chalabi's group. If you recall, Chalabi was Judith Miller's main source for the bio-lab propaganda that was used by the administration as talking points of an ongoing Iraqi bioweapons program. I would think that Chalabi seeing the propganda pulled off once, employed it again.

Woolsey also happens to be exceptionaly close to Cheney and Rumsfeld. I am not sure if Wolfowitz or Feith would have had the relationship with Ross that was needed to leak this to him without him becoming supcious or his editors. But if Rumsfeld was called to testify, he could inform Congress if the others were involved.

White House Iraq Group (WHIG):

The rest of the sources likely came from this propaganda outfit working out of Dick Cheney's office. They had one job, to sell the Iraq War. More importantly, WHIG and ABC have something in common (emphasis mine):

That was the morning when the Bush White House officially rolled out its fraudulent case for the war. The four horsemen of the apocalypse - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Rice - were dispatched en masse to the Washington talk shows, where they eagerly pointed to a front-page New York Times article
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFDE1E3EF93BA3575AC0A9649C8B63
amplifying subsequently debunked administration claims that Saddam had sought to buy aluminum tubes meant for nuclear weapons. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Condoleezza Rice on CNN, introducing a sales pitch concocted by a White House speechwriter.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/08/le.00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801587.html

What followed was an epic propaganda onslaught of distorted intelligence, fake news, credulous and erroneous reporting by bona fide journalists, presidential playacting and Congressional fecklessness. Much of it had been plotted that summer of 2002 by the then-secret White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a small task force of administration brass charged with the Iraq con job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9

Today the spirit of WHIG lives. In the stay-the-surge propaganda offensive that crests with this week's Congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, history is repeating itself in almost every particular. Even the specter of imminent "nuclear holocaust" has been rebooted in President Bush's arsenal of rhetorical scare tactics.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070828-2.html

The new WHIG is a 24/7 Pentagon information "war room" conceived in the last throes of the Rumsfeld regime and run by a former ABC News producer. White House "facts" about the surge's triumph are turning up unsubstantiated in newspapers and on TV. Instead of being bombarded with dire cherry-picked intelligence about W.M.D., this time we're being serenaded with feel-good cherry-picked statistics offering hope. Once again the fix is in. Mr. Bush's pretense that he has been waiting for the Petraeus-Crocker report before setting his policy is as bogus as his U.N. charade before the war. And once again a narrowly Democratic Senate lacks the votes to stop him.(Frank Rich)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/24/pentagon_setting_up_war_information_room/
http://www.truthout.org/article/frank-rich-as-iraqis-stand-down-well-stand-up

White House "facts" about the surge's triumph are turning up unsubstantiated in newspapers and on TV. Instead of being bombarded with dire cherry-picked intelligence about W.M.D., this time we're being serenaded with feel-good cherry-picked statistics offering hope. Once again the fix is in. Mr. Bush's pretense that he has been waiting for the Petraeus-Crocker report before setting his policy is as bogus as his U.N. charade before the war. And once again a narrowly Democratic Senate lacks the votes to stop him. (Frank Rich)

Before it was in its last throes, it was still operational, if not entirely a formalized group. More importantly, we now have a direct link to ABC. Who were the members of this group?

The members of the White House Iraq Group include:

* Karl Rove
* Karen Hughes
* Mary Matalin
* Andrew Card
* James R. Wilkinson
* Nicholas E. Calio
* Condoleezza Rice
* Stephen Hadley
* I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby
* Michael Gerson
* Rendon Group
* Scott McClellan

Karl Rove was its chairman. Now of the names above, I have highlited those that likely were sources for Ross on this story. Why do I think that out of this group Karl Rove, Condi Rice, Stephen Hadley, and/or Scooter Libby was likely the source for the propaganda? Because Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, and Scooter Libby had done it before. People like Hadley and Rice would be in a position to know, making them more likely. But given that Rice's involvement in previous leaks is minimal, I tend to see her then-number 2, Hadley, as more likely. Hadley would be in a position to know because he was number 2 on the National Security Council. Libby would be in a position to know because he was Cheney's COS. Rove would be in a position to know because he was at that time still the president's brain.

The rest of PR/Media people and would not be read into such sensitive details nor would be easily believed when approaching journalists. So, in addition to Rummy, and Woolsey, the prime suspects are Libby, Hadley, and Rove. They have done it before with little regard for national security and it was their prime objective - to tie Iraq to the terrorsts attack on this nation.

Again, this is all my own speculation, based on no insider information whatsoever. But Congress can and should easily resolve this by calling these people in to testify under oath.

Thoughts?

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/abcs-sources-on.html

***************************************

again, printed in full with permission for one of DU's stars and one of the country's finest investigative journalists,
thanks larisa, kpete,
p.s. Larisa - this time,
you gave me too much info, you are TOO good - links to die for!!!

RAW STORY is proud to announce that its investigative news series "The Permanent Republican Majority," conducted and penned by Larisa Alexandrovna Muriel Kane and Lindsay Beyerstein, has been nominated for an online investigative journalism award by the Online News Association.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Raw_Story_nominated_for_online_journalism_0804.html