Yesterday, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner claimed to have evidence that Iran's government has aided U.S. enemies in Iraq (Washington Post and New York Times). I don't have security clearance and don't share a bedroom an office with someone who does, so I cannot challenge validity. I can, however, remind readers of the medias' pattern of uncritical reporting as I try to shake off the deja vu.
A few short months ago, Bill Moyers' show "Buying the War" sought to answer the question "How did the mainstream press get it so wrong?" (See USA Today and PBS transcript at Truthout.) Why did reporters blindly believe that Iraq had WMDs? Why did they fail to challenge the Administration's implications about an Iraq-9/11 link? Why did they unquestioningly celebrate when President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in 2003?
Four years later: those massively destructive weapons remain un-found; Bush emphatically denied links between Iraq and 9/11 (though not until after the invasion); and, our bungled mission in Iraq has no clear end in sight. Worse yet, pre-war intelligence reports indicate that the Administration was warned that the Iraq war would be long-term.
Basically, Moyers' pointed out that America's media failed America's people by failing to question their President, which compelled some journalists to hang their heads in mea-culpa shame.
And yet, while we listen to officials build a case to attack Iran, prominent media report the claims without questioning.
Salon's Glenn Greenwald dissected yesterday's New York Times article by Michael Gordon, which basically repeats officials' accusations that the Iranian government has already committed acts of war against the U.S. by arming our enemies. Part of Greenwald's analysis follows:
"What is the basis for Gordon's story? What sources does he use to convey these incomparably serious charges? One source and one source only, the only one he seems to know -- military spokespeople, in this case Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner.
"Every paragraph in this article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations (e.g., "There is also extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq" and "In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders"). (Salon)
Yesterday's Washington Post article is similarly unquestioning. The first paragraph states:
"An American general said on Monday that Iraqi Shiite militiamen are being trained by Iranian security forces in cooperation with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite movement, offering the most specific accusations to date of Iranian involvement in specific attacks against U.S. forces."
"The most specific ... to date" gives the accusations a credible ring, but technically means nothing. I could accuse a Senator of having sex with a specific12-year-old boy on a specific day, and it would still be a mere accusation.
Moreover, the second paragraph undermines the specificity mentioned in the first. The article states that Gen. Bergner said Iran's Quds Force "was providing armor-piercing weapons to extremist groups in Iraq, funneling them up to $3 million a month...." Technically, up to $3 million includes any amount from $0 to $2.999999 million. Is that specific?
The article mentioned two sources (albiet, second hand): Qais Khazali, who allegedly worked with the Iranian Quds Force; and Ali Musa Daqduq, who allegedly worked with Hezbolla. U.S. forces captured both men in March but kept the capture secret until yesterday. I don't know the reason behind the timing. Bergner said that Khazali and Daduq said during interrogation "that senior leadership within the Quds Force knew of and supported" a January attack in Iraq that killed five coalition soldiers.
Maybe the two men did admit this, and maybe the admission is true. I have no way of knowing -- and neither does a journalist at a press conference. The interrogating-detainees thing brought another question to mind: were the video-taped confessions torture-induced? I have no way of knowing that, either.
I do know that if an interrogator waved a glowing-hot poker under my nose, he could easily get me to admit that I'm an African man with Muslim leanings who believes that Dick Cheney is not part of the executive branch. [Though my cartoon image skimmed off a few pounds, I really am a lighter-skinned female. If you don't believe me, see my pic. Yes, I could have uploaded a friend's picture, and there's no way for you to know otherwise -- but what will you lose by believing me?]
Just to be clear, I am not challenging the validity of accusations against Iran. I'm simply urging America's journalists (the one or two who might see this blog) to learn from mistakes made during the Iraq war's lead-up and to be vigilant in scrutinizing all claims that point to war with Iran.
Remember, President Bush made clear some years ago that he wanted to attack Iran, evident in his listing that nation as part of evil's unseen axis. If we're going to attack Iran, let's make sure that its for real and valid reasons.
Other Stuff Worth Reading:
* Journalists: Be Careful with Iran, Think of Iraq (BNP)
* The Redirection (Seymour Hersh, New Yorker)
* It's Hard to Imagine (Talk Left)
* Caught My Eye in the News (Common Sense)
* In which we Learn Nothing from Past Mistakes (This is Only a Test)
* Will Questionable Claims lead to Another War? (BNP)
Comments