Jennings to Franks: Want "More Time"? WMD "Legitimate...Tools" -- 03/14/2003 CyberAlert

1. Jennings to Franks: Want "More Time"? WMD "Legitimate... Tools"
Peter Jennings, in an interview conducted in Qatar with General Tommy Franks, worried if he has "enough men" to achieve his mission, suggested he might want "more time" before war begins, wondered if military targets next to schools and mosques would be "off limits," wanted to know if Franks has any "fear" about what could happen and asked Franks to put himself in Hussein's shoes: "If you were Saddam Hussein, do you think that chemical and biological weapons would be a legitimate tool in your box, in your tool kit?" Franks refused to take part in Jennings' imagining.

2. Glover: "Patriotism" Being Used to "Quiet Us and Detain Us"
Who exactly is "us"? Accepting the "Chairman's Awards" during the NAACP Image Awards broadcast on Fox Thursday night, actor Danny Glover asserted: "How we assume our responsibility as concerned, informed citizens, to question, [to] dissent, to speak truth in times when fear and the call to nationalism and patriotism are used as barriers to quiet us and detain us will determine how we [are] remembered."

3. FNC Explores France's Record of Enabling Saddam Hussein
Providing the kind of historic look at France's friendliness with Saddam Hussein you'll never see on ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, on Thursday night FNC's Brian Wilson reviewed France's recent history of hindering any effort to contain or impede Hussein. Brit Hume relayed how a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that when "asked how they would feel if the President agreed to French demands and extended the inspections, 44 percent said they'd be less favorable toward President Bush, while 28 said they'd be more favorable."

4. CBS's Hartman Finds Anti-War Teenage Protesters are Clueless
Clueless anti-war high school student protesters mocked by CBS News. Really. Wednesday's 60 Minutes II ended with a short piece by Steve Hartman on how he suspects high schoolers are just using the protests to get out of class. When a teenage girl told him that "people who never did anything are just being bombed and suffering and becoming homeless," Hartman asked where this is occurring. She giddily replied: "Everywhere. They, didn't they bomb Iraq?" Asked to name the leader of Iraq, a teenage guy came up with "Osama bin Laden."

5. All Nets Refer to "What Critics Call 'Partial-Birth Abortion'"
All the networks on the same page. In describing a Senate vote to ban a type of abortion, on Thursday night ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, FNC and NBC all used nearly identical language to separate themselves from the most common way the procedure is identified as all referred to how the vote was on a procedure "critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

>>> "2003 Dishonor Awards: Roasting the Most Outrageously Biased Liberal Reporters." CyberAlert subscribers can get tickets for $150, $25 off the regular price, for the Thursday, March 27 event in Washington, DC. For all the info and how to buy tickets:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/dishonor/03/info.asp
Cal Thomas will serve as Master of Ceremonies with Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham amongst those helping to present awards.
Rush Limbaugh was one of the judges who picked the winners, along with Lawrence Kudlow, Steve Forbes, Lucianne Goldberg, Michael Reagan and Kate O'Beirne.
Plus, the Charlie Daniels Band will sing some songs. The award titles:
Ozzy Osbourne Award (for the Wackiest Comment of the Year)
I Hate You Conservatives Award
Ashamed of the Red, White, and Blue Award
And They Called It Puppy Love Award
The I'm Not a Geopolitical Genius But I Play One on TV Award
Come to the dinner to watch the winning quotes, see who wins and learn which conservatives will accept each award in jest. It will be a lot of media bashing fun. <<<

Jennings to Franks: Want "More Time"?
WMD "Legitimate...Tools"

Peter Jennings, in an interview conducted in Qatar with General Tommy Franks, commander of all U.S. troops in the region, worried if he has "enough men" to achieve his mission, suggested he might want "more time" before war begins, wondered if military targets next to schools and mosques would be "off limits," wanted to know if Franks has any "fear" about what could happen and asked Franks to put himself in Hussein's shoes: "If you were Saddam Hussein, do you think that chemical and biological weapons would be a legitimate tool in your box, in your tool kit?"

Franks refused to take part in Jennings' imagining: "I would never place myself, Peter, in the mind of the leader of the Iraqi regime." To which Jennings insisted: "Isn't that part of what a commander's supposed to do?" Franks rejected the notion: "No, sir."

Excerpts from the interview ran on Thursday's World News Tonight and Prime Time Thursday. On World News Tonight, the segment aired minutes after ABC's Terry Moran once again referred to the Bush policy as a "hardline" one: "This morning, Secretary of State Powell told members of Congress the administration was re-considering its hardline."

Plugs for the upcoming segment on Prime Time Thursday featured very brief video clips of Jennings, outfitted in a green helmet, standing in the turret of a tank. His Mike Dukakis moment. (Check the posted version of this item to see this.)

Below is a rundown of the questions posed on the March 13 World News Tonight (WNT), with the one also played on Prime Time Thursday (PTT) noted, followed by those shown only on Prime Time Thursday.

-- Jennings: "You have argued from almost the outset of his process for more men. You've had to fight for it on occasion. Do you have enough men now to win?"
Franks rejected the premise: "Peter, let me challenge the first, let me challenge your question for a second. There actually isn't truth in the speculation that I have been arguing for more men. What I've done, and in fact what the Secretary has also done, what the President of the United States has done, is take look at military options available over time and want to be sure that the military options available are credible, that they can accomplish the objective and that's a little different than a suggestion hat one or the other has argued for more troops or less troops or more time or less time."
Jennings plowed ahead undeterred: "Okay, let me remove the question. Let me ask you the question that Americans want to know. Do you have enough men to win the war and do you have enough men to win the peace?"
Franks: "There is absolutely no question in my mind that if the President of the United States decides to take military action, that we have sufficient -- I use the word 'capacity,' not levels of troops, not counts of bombs -- we have sufficient military capacity to do the job that America's military would be asked to do."

-- Jennings: "Do you think you can currently, with your capacity, win this war 5-to-4 or 15-nothing?"
Franks: "I think it's hard to put it in that kind of a context."
Jennings: "But military men do that all the time."
Franks: "Well, this military man would prefer to say, 'if called on to do this mission, there is no doubt about who is the victor. There is no doubt.'"

-- Jennings: "Any target off-limits?"
Franks: "I won't say they're off-limits. No, I won't say they're off-limits. I'll say they get my very careful review."
Jennings: "So if there is a tank near a mosque, if there's a piece of artillery in a school yard, if there is a missile right next door to a hospital, off-limits or-?"
Franks: "No, it requires a decision in each case."

-- Jennings, in question shown on both WNT and PTT, returned to his usual push to delay any war: "From a purely military point of view, would you like to have more time before the battle begins?"
Franks: "I think, first off, as you know, a decision has not been made that battle will begin and it's a cliché, it's also true that the person who likes war least is the soldier and I'm no different. And so one, I think, hopes to never have a war. On the other hand, one is wise to not try to turn hope into a strategy."

-- Jennings: "I've talked to young soldiers and Marines this week close to the front who openly admit that they're afraid. Is fear a factor for the commander as well?"
Franks: "Absolutely. And you know why? The greatest obligation that commanders feel is to get their job done, accomplish the mission, to be sure. But you know as well as I do, Peter, what their second concern is, and that is to take care of their own people...."

-- Jennings: "For better or worse, sir, you're about to have a place in history. At this point, what would you like history to say about you?"
Franks: "Oh, gosh, Peter. I'd like history to reflect that I'm an American who takes his job very seriously, that I'm a family man, that I have great confidence in my own country, I have great confidence in my own family and I have great confidence in my faith."

In addition to the fourth question above, the Prime Time Thursday excerpt featured these questions:

-- Jennings: "Do you have enough men to liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam Hussein and enable them to at least begin the process of democratizing, without costing American lives?"
Franks: "Without costing American lives. Never will one get a guarantee, because wars have a way of not being able to be well calculated at the beginning in terms of the loss of life, but the nature of war is the loss of life."

-- Jennings wondered if Franks is frightened about fighting in a city like Baghdad and "how much stock" he puts in stories that Hussein will bust dams, light oil fields on fire.

-- Jennings: "If you were Saddam Hussein, do you think that chemical and biological weapons would be a legitimate tool in your box, in your tool kit?"
Franks: "I would never place myself, Peter, in the mind of the leader of the Iraqi regime."
Jennings: "Isn't that part of what a commander's supposed to do?"
Franks: "No, sir. I think what every commander will do is study the psychology and study the outward manifestations of what may go on in an adversary's mind. I believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction is beyond the law..."

ABCNews.com has posted the text of some of the interview:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/DailyNews/franks_transcript_030313.html

When ABC's transcript is in conflict with what I have above, go with my version which matches exactly what was actually said on the air.

Glover: "Patriotism" Being Used to
"Quiet Us and Detain Us"

Who exactly is "us"? Accepting the "Chairman's Awards" during the NAACP Image Awards broadcast on Fox Thursday night, actor Danny Glover asserted: "How we assume our responsibility as concerned, informed citizens, to question, dissent, to speak truth in times when fear and the call to nationalism and patriotism are used as barriers to quiet us and detain us will determine how we [are] remembered."

Are anti-war celebrities being "detained" or is Glover identifying himself with al-Qaeda suspects who have been detained?

(Glover clearly said "detained," not "refrained.")

Glover's comments came during the awards ceremony taped on Saturday night, March 8, at Universal Studios in Los Angeles County. Accepting his award in the event run in prime time by Fox on March 13, Glover rallied the audience:
"While awards anoint us for what our past accomplishments and sacrifices have been, what do we do today, tomorrow and in our futures will be the substance of how we are remembered. How we assume our responsibility as concerned, informed citizens, to question, [to] dissent, to speak truth in times when fear and the call to nationalism and patriotism are used as barriers to quiet us and detain us (applause) will determine how we [are] remembered.
"So, your generous tribute and my acceptance of that acknowledgment only reminds us that there's so much yet to be done. And in our work, no matter what our professions or occupation, we must demand as well as envision a peaceful world, a more just world and a better world."

(Glover did not say the words in brackets, "to" and "are," but I inserted them in order to make his comments make sense, or at least so his nonsense is not made worse by his oral stumbling.)

The NAACP's page for its Image Awards: http://64.55.201.164/newima.html

For a picture of Glover and a rundown of his many movie roles: http://us.imdb.com/Name?Glover,+Danny

Last year Glover was amongst a bunch of left-wing celebrities, including Ed Asner, Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and Marisa Tomei, who helped pay for a full page New York Times ad, from a group called Not in Our Name, denouncing President Bush's war on terrorism. The ad screeched: "We call on all Americans to RESIST the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate." The signers also equated 9/11 with the terror inflicted by the U.S. military in Baghdad, Panama City and Vietnam. Details: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20020923.asp#8

FNC Explores France's Record of
Enabling Saddam Hussein

Providing the kind of historic look at France's friendliness with Saddam Hussein you'll never see on ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings, on Thursday night FNC's Brian Wilson Special Report with Brit Hume reviewed France's recent history of impeding any effort to contain or impede Hussein.

FNC reporter Brian Wilson ran through a series of French actions, from renewing diplomatic relations to blocking a UN "resolution that would have imposed travel restrictions on Iraqi military and intelligence officers" to not supporting the current set of inspections to how "the French oil giant, Total Fina Elf, has a $60 billion deal with Hussein to develop southern Iraqi oil fields."

Before Wilson's piece, Hume relayed how a new Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found that when "asked how they would feel if the President agreed to French demands and extended the inspections, 44 percent said they'd be less favorable toward President Bush, while 28 said they'd be more favorable."

Hume recited the poll results on his March 13 show: "In our latest Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, 71 percent of those polled support U.S. military action to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam compared to 67 percent back in January, while 20 percent now oppose, down from 25 percent. Seventy-one percent also agree it's time to go into Iraq, up 15 percent from last month, while only 21 percent disagree with such action, that down 14 percent from last month. Eight percent said they're not sure, 87 percent of those asked feel Iraq is not complying with UN resolutions to disarm. Only four percent feel they are complying. And when asked how they would feel if the President agreed to French demands and extended the inspections, 44 percent said they'd be less favorable toward the President, President Bush, while 28 said they'd be more favorable, and 19 percent say they would remain the same in their attitude on that issue. Finally, when asked who was doing more to achieve peace in Iraq, 75 percent said soldiers, eight percent favored war protesters, five percent felt both were contributing."

The poll results are online at: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81023,00.html

Hume set up Wilson's story: "France's behavior on Iraq has shocked many Americans and triggered calls for boycotts and a wave of anti-French jokes. But if you followed the history of the world's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein and France's role in it, its recent behavior may not seem so surprising. And as Fox News correspondent Brian Wilson reports, this is not the first time France has not seen eye to eye with the U.S. and its allies when dealing with Iraq."

Wilson began, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "Since the days of de Gaulle, French foreign policy has been largely pro-Arab. In the mid-70s, the French were so tight with Saddam Hussein that Jacques Chirac, the French foreign minister at the time, was jokingly nicknamed 'Jacques Iraq.' Today Chirac, now the President of France, has been using the United Nations as a forum to frustrate U.S. efforts to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. Why?"
John Hulsman, Heritage Foundation: "The French see the UN as a place where they can further their national interests by hamstringing what the United States does. And what they're trying to do is this larger geopolitical thing, but also to protect some really concrete economic interests they've built up with Saddam over the last, say, 25 years."
Wilson: "Take a look at the track record. In the days before the last war with Iraq, the French angered previous President Bush by floating an eleventh hour peace proposal. However, when it became clear Iraq would not accept the terms of the French plan, they reluctantly joined the Desert Storm coalition. In 1995, France surprised many by announcing plans to renew diplomatic relations with Baghdad, the first major country to do so. Later, in 1995, France blocked U.S. language in a UN resolution that would have declared Iraq in material breach of the Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement. In '96, the French blocked a resolution that would have condemned an Iraqi offensive against the Kurds. In '97, France opposed a U.S.-backed resolution that would have imposed travel restrictions on Iraqi military and intelligence officers.
"In '98, the French foreign minister [won't attempt to spell name], declared Iraq had disarmed, a position that no other nation believed or endorsed at the time. In 1999, France did not even support the creation of UNMOVIC, the current group of UN weapons inspectors now in Iraq. The same inspectors France says should be given all the time they need."
Ari Fleischer, White House Spokesman: "They did not support a condemnation of Iraq, nor did they support demanding immediate unconditional unrestricted access to any and all facilities."
Wilson: "It's perhaps easier to understand why the French have been so protective of the Hussein regime when you look at the Iraq-French connection. The French oil giant, Total Fina Elf, has a $60 billion deal with Hussein to develop southern Iraqi oil fields."
Hulsman: "That kind of deal that they cut won't be worth the paper it's printed on. There's no way a new Iraqi government or a United States administering Iraq is going to say, well, for all your help here, we're going to let you do this deal that you did with this corrupt dictator, and we're going to let you exclusively dominate the development of Iraqi oil. Not a chance in the world."
Wilson concluded: "Which is why many experts believe that ultimately, reluctantly, the French will join, in some fashion, the U.S.-led coalition. To do otherwise would cut them out of any effort to rebuild Iraq and leave them somewhat isolated on the world stage."

CBS's Hartman Finds Anti-War Teenage
Protesters are Clueless

Clueless anti-war high school student protesters mocked by CBS News. Really. Wednesday's 60 Minutes II ended with a short piece by Steve Hartman, the guy who does the very Americana "Everybody Has a Story" vignettes, on how he suspects high schoolers are just using the protests to get out of class: "To me, giving up algebra for peace is a kind of like giving up brussel sprouts for Lent, just a little too convenient to be commendable."

Hartman showed how they really need "to pick up a newspaper." When a high school girl told him that "people who never did anything are just being bombed and suffering and becoming homeless," Hartman asked where this is occurring. She giddily replied: "Everywhere. They, didn't they bomb Iraq?" Asked to name the leader of Iraq, a guy answered: "Osama bin Laden." Back to the not too swift girl, she kept repeating a flyer's demand: "Healthcare not welfare!" Of course, it really postulated: "Healthcare not warfare."

MRC analyst Brian Boyd alerted me to the Hartman piece, which aired at the end of the March 12 60 Minutes II, and put together a transcript of it.

Sitting in a coffee shop, Hartman began: "Everyday I come to this coffee house in Los Angeles. It's across the street from a high school where twice now I've seen students walk out of class to protest war with Iraq. Now to me, giving up algebra for peace is a kind of like giving up brussel sprouts for Lent, just a little too convenient to be commendable.
"And it's not just here, kids are walking out of high schools and junior high schools all over America. The object used to be to sit-in and take over the school, now kids just give up the ship, abandon class to stand on a street corner and bark. Never mind that at their age-"
High school girl protester, amongst maybe 20 or so along the side of a major street: "Make love, not war."
Hartman: "-they have no business making either. I just think if they're going to picket-"
Same teenage girl: "Peace not war."
Hartman: "-they ought to pick up a newspaper."
Same girl, holding a blue sign from "Not in Our Name" proclaiming: "No War on Iraq, No War on the World," She propounded: "People who never did anything are just being bombed and suffering and becoming homeless. People-"
Hartman to her: "Where?"
Girl: "Everywhere. They, didn't they bomb Iraq?"
Hartman: "No, not yet."
Girl: "They bombed Afghanistan, right?"
Hartman: "Yeah, yeah."
Girl: "They did and yeah, people are dying and it's, it's not right."
Hartman: "They kind of got the gist."
Hartman to a teenage guy: "The leader of Iraq is?"
Hartman narration: "They're just missing a few details."
Guy: "Umm."
Hartman: "What comes to your head? Just right off the top of your head."
Guy: "Osama bin Laden."
Hartman: "Osama bin Laden?"

Hartman's piece then jumped from the street side to conservative actor/author Ben Stein's house. Stein declared from his sofa: "I'm stunned when I meet them and how little they know."
Hartman: "Ben Stein is a lawyer, Star Search judge and fellow skeptic on this issue."
Stein: "Wow, we can miss class and have meaning in our lives and we're only 15 years old and don't know where Iraq is on the map. What a great deal."
Hartman, over video of Stein's backyard with smoke pouring out of a small device on the ground: "Ironically, even as he ranted about America's misguided youth, outside his own son was trying out the smoke bomb recipe he got from the Anarchist Cookbook. Really."
Stein talking out his back door to his teenage son: "Don't do that, Tommy. What if you set the tree on fire. Why don't you go into Beverly Hills and pick up some girls?"
Hartman: "At least he does know the leader of Iraq."

Back to the teens on the street, Hartman picked up where he left off, with a the dumbfounded guy: "Why does Osama bin Laden keep coming to my head?"
Girl protester: "What else do we feel strongly about?"
Hartman: "Finally, the most insightful comment of the day."
Teenage girl, the same one as earlier, reading from a flyer: "OK, 'healthcare not welfare.' I mean, 'healthcare not welfare,' yeah."
Hartman: "Actually it says, 'healthcare not warfare,' but I digress."
Hartman to the girl: "And you feel strongly about that?"
Girl: "No, but, I mean, like I do but I don't know enough about it."
Hartman then tried to suggest both sides are equally naive: "And that says it all. I see too many kids and way too many adults on both sides taking a firm stand without a leg to stand on. Apparently, it's better to pick a side than admit you watch way too much Jerry Springer. Which by the way, is a name I'm sure they do know."
Hartman to the clueless guy: "Saddam."
Guy: "Saddam Hussein?"
Hartman: "There you go."

And that was the end of Hartman's piece.

Of all the 60 Minutes II stories on Wednesday night, which included a Dan Rather report on how the Patriot II missiles supposedly don't work, this is the only one without an online mention or summary, at least as of Thursday night. The 60 Minutes II page: http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60II/main3475.shtml

For a picture and bio of Hartman:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/earlyshow/bios/main516754.shtml

To learn about his usually heartwarming "Everybody Has a Story" pieces:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/29/hartman/main516767.shtml

All Nets Refer to "What Critics Call
'Partial-Birth Abortion'"

All the networks on the same page. In describing a Senate vote to ban a type of abortion, on Thursday night ABC, CBS, CNBC, CNN, FNC and NBC all used nearly identical language to separate themselves from the most common way the procedure is identified as all referred to how the vote was on a procedure "critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

ABC: "...late term abortions which critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

CBS: "...a particular type of late-term abortion that opponents call 'partial-birth.'"

CNBC: "...a type of late-term abortion that opponents call 'partial birth.'"

CNN: "...a specific kind of late-term abortion, a procedure that's come to be known by its critics as 'partial-birth abortion.'"

FNC: "...a ban on what critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

NBC: "...the Senate vote to ban the procedure, which critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

Talk about uniformity and conformity.

I suppose that on the up side, at least those against the procedure got their negative-sounding language into every story.

Now a rundown of the full items on the vote. Only FNC did anything more than a brief item, so for all but FNC these quotes represent the total coverage on Thursday night, March 13:

-- ABC's World News Tonight anchor Charles Gibson: "A victory today for anti-abortion forces. The Senate overwhelmingly voted -- 64 to 33 -- to ban certain late term abortions which critics call 'partial-birth abortion.' The Senate bill would ban the procedure even when a pregnant woman's health is in danger as long as her life is not threatened. President Bush supports the ban."

-- CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather: "On Capitol Hill the Senate voted today, by a nearly two-to-one margin, to ban a particular type of late-term abortion that opponents call 'partial-birth.' House passage is expected this Spring and President Bush has said he will sign this legislation. Abortion rights activists vow a court fight."

-- CNBC's The News with Brian Williams anchor Forrest Sawyer, previewing next day headlines "The Washington Post, Senate votes to ban late-term abortion procedure. The vote was nearly two to one. And that is a type of late-term abortion that opponents call 'partial birth.' The bill includes an exemption if the woman's life is in danger. The House is expected to vote in favor. The President is expected to sign it. Several women's and civil liberty groups are challenging the ban."

-- CNN NewsNight anchor Aaron Brown: "A few more stories before we go to break, starting with a controversial vote in Congress today. The Senate voted to outlaw a specific kind of late-term abortion, a procedure that's come to be known by its critics as 'partial-birth abortion.' The vote was 64-33. The measure expected on sail through the House. If it does, it'd be the first time Congress criminalized a specific form of abortion and a Supreme Court challenge looks like certainty. The court knocked down a Nebraska law quite similar to the bill passed by Congress today."

-- On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume avoided the phraseology: "The Senate voted overwhelmingly today to ban a controversial abortion method that involves partial delivery of a fetus..." But Carl Cameron came through: "By a lopsided 65 to 33 margin, the U.S. Senate passed a ban on what critics call 'partial-birth abortion.'"

-- NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw: "One of President Bush's top priorities, outlawing late-term abortions, made big headway in Congress today. The Senate vote to ban the procedure, which critics call 'partial-birth abortion.' The bill is expected to pass in the House next month. The President has already promised he'll sign, but a court fight is expected almost as quickly."

> CyberAlert continues its slow but steady growth, thanks to your never-wavering support. This week we surpassed 12,000 subscribers. It all started almost seven years ago with barely 20 subscribers. -- Brent Baker