Powell Convinces NBC's Panel But Not ABC's Martha Raddatz -- 02/05/2003 CyberAlert Extra

1. Powell Convinces NBC's Panel But Not ABC's Martha Raddatz
After Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation, on NBC former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler "absolutely" agreed that Powell made the case as did former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein conceded that Powell "laid out a very plausible, a very respectable case for" going to war. But, ABC's Martha Raddatz offered tips to the French: "A lot of this evidence they could try to refute. They could say perhaps these colonels, these Iraqi republican guards were freelancing, and who were these defectors? There's a lot here they can play with."

2. NBC's Curry Again Relays Anti-U.S. "Public Opinion" in Baghdad
NBC's Ann Curry keeps treating the anti-American views of supposedly average Iraqis as relevant. This morning, just hours before Powell's UN presentation, Curry relayed from Baghdad on Today: "People here just don't believe their President is hiding weapons of mass destruction. These men say the inspectors have found nothing because Iraq has nothing to hide, that the U.S. government's real agenda is to seize Iraq's oil fields."

3. MRC's Bozell in National Review Online Debate on Liberal Bias
National Review Online today features a debate with MRC President Brent Bozell facing off against left-wing writer Eric Alterman. Topic: "Are the Media Liberal?"

4. "Top Ten Things Dumb Guys Think the U.N. Does"
Letterman's "Top Ten Things Dumb Guys Think the U.N. Does."

Powell Convinces NBC's Panel But Not
ABC's Martha Raddatz

After Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, on NBC former UN chief weapons inspector Richard Butler "absolutely" agreed that Powell made the case as did former Democratic Congressman Lee Hamilton, and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein conceded that Powell "laid out a very plausible, a very respectable case for" going to war. But, as usual, ABC was off to the left, to the left of a liberal like Feinstein.

Just before noon EST today, ABC News reporter Martha Raddatz told Peter Jennings how the French and Germans would still have legitimate reasons not to believe Powell's case and suggested ways they might do so:
"I kept trying to listen to it through the ears of the French and the German. Much of what they heard today, much of what everyone heard today, has been heard before and it is the reason they went along with Resolution 1441, the reason they sent inspectors in and want inspectors to remain. A lot of this evidence they could try to refute. They could say perhaps these colonels, these Iraqi republican guards were freelancing, and who were these defectors? There's a lot here they can play with."

Now, more details about NBC versus ABC late this morning EST after Powell finished his presentation which all the broadcast networks carried:

-- NBC News. Brokaw got feedback: "Let's begin with former UN weapons inspector chief Richard Butler who is Sydney, Australia. Mr. Ambassador did he make the case in your judgement?"
Butler affirmed, as taken down by MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens: "Absolutely, Tom. Beyond doubt. Now whether everyone will act accordingly or believe it we will see. The French, the Russians will have some problems. The Chinese, perhaps as well. But Tom my simple answer to you is absolutely clear. He has made a major challenge to the Security Council. Probably the most important challenge its faced in its history. It will deal this man and his weapons or it will fail and he made that clear. The game is now afoot big time."
Brokaw: "Thank you Ambassador Butler. At one point Secretary of State Powell said the Security Council's relevance is at stake here as well. Let's go to my colleague who is a former UN weapons inspector, himself. Mr. Kay did he make the case?"
David Kay: "I think he made a powerful case. He put his own integrity on the line. He put some of the most closely held intelligence information in the U.S. government before the Council. It's gonna be awfully hard for them to shrink from that."

Brokaw soon went to Feinstein and Hamilton: "Let's go now to Washington and the United States Senate and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California who has had reservations about the need to go to war against Iraq, even though she voted for the resolution that came before the Senate last Fall. Senator Feinstein what was your reaction to the Secretary Powell's presentation today?"
Feinstein: "Well it was the most comprehensive case I've heard in a classified or a non-classified setting. And I think he laid out the many parameters of deceit and deception. In terms of threat the one that he laid out, [clears throat] excuse me, it was the most compelling to me was the Unmanned Area Vehicle and the development of that with spray tanks and he kind of laid down the fact that this could be in our country and there was a possibility that this might be used against the United States. I think that he made an argument that Iraq is a real threat to its neighbors. And he made the argument that it's a very real possible maybe even probable threat to the United States."
Brokaw: "And do you now believe that it will be necessary to go to war against Iraq to deal with that threat?"
Feinstein: "Well let me, let me say this. I think what's really necessary is for the Security Council to face up to its obligations and that obligation is to compel compliance. If we are gonna go to war and I think he laid out a very plausible, a very respectable case for that. You know war is a last resort. If arms inspections can succeed and I think he also made the, I hate to say this, but he made the argument as to why they can't succeed based on the past practice of Iraq and the belief that those practices are continuing. Then the Security Council has to measure up or they do, in fact, become irrelevant. So my hope is that we will have a positive response from the Security Council."
Brokaw: "Senator Dianne Feinstein of California thank you very much for being with us. One of the most highly regarded members of the Washington community is the former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, former chair of the House Foreign Relations committee, now the President of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Peace. Congressman both in tone and content do you think the Secretary of State made the kind of argument that he needs to make to the American people to get them fully on board if there is to be a war?"
Hamilton: "Yes I do. First of all the staging was impressive. The administration's most persuasive advocate who has the greatest credibility in the world, the dove in the administration, makes the case. He's backed up the head of the Central Intelligence Agency. Secondly the intelligence capabilities of the United States came through this presentation powerfully. Just showing to all the world what we know about what's going on. Third, the manner in which he marshaled that evidence, I thought, was powerful. And that question that he asked at the end, whether we can take the risk with Saddam Hussein not using the weapons, I thought, was a powerful conclusion. This really does put the United Nations on the spot. Most of all, however, it puts Saddam Hussein on the spot. And now we are clearly on the path to war unless Saddam Hussein has a change of heart."

-- ABC News. George Stephanopoulos actually found that Powell delivered "a convincing indictment." Stephanopoulos opined, as transcribed by MRC analyst Jessica Anderson:
"Well Peter, first of all, when you talk about hearing new things, the most, I think, startling evidence to most people, particularly here in the United States, will be those telephone intercepts of the Iraqi commanders talking about how they are going to evade, if you take them at their word, the UN inspectors. I think that will be startling and quite convincing to a lot of American ears. It also gives a powerful tool to Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector. He's scheduled to go onto Baghdad in the next several days. He can confront the Iraqis with this evidence, ask them to produce the commanders. That will be a real test for the Iraqis, so all in all, I think this was a comprehensive, quite frightening and, I think in the end, convincing indictment."

Peter Jennings turned to Raddatz: "Nobody has covered this particular story more closely than ABC's Martha Raddatz, who is with the Secretary of State in New York today. Martha, your ears tell you what?"
Raddatz: "Well, there certainly was some compelling circumstantial evidence, Peter, but I kept trying to listen to it through the ears of the French and the German. Much of what they heard today, much of what everyone heard today, has been heard before and it is the reason they went along with Resolution 1441, the reason they sent inspectors in and want inspectors to remain. A lot of this evidence they could try to refute. They could say perhaps these colonels, these Iraqi republican guards were freelancing, and who were these defectors? There's a lot here they can play with."

After ABC analyst Tony Cordesman called it "a very impressive case," Jennings, noting how Powell had cited previously undisclosed evidence, asked Terry Moran at the White House to explain the delay in divulging the proof, asking Moran for a brief word "on why the world never heard about it before."
Moran explained: "Well, the Bush administration in two ways has been trying to protect sources and methods and save the best for last, as it were, but Peter," Moran seemed to say in reaction to Raddatz's concern about the French, "I should say that while many people viewed this as a test of the United States -- what can President Bush and his administration put before the world? -- it is very typical of this President and members of his administration that they now see this as a test of the UN and of the international community to see if it'll actually enforce 1441."

And it will be a test of the U.S. media to see if they are more interested in the threat or in providing tips to the French on how to undermine the anti-Hussein coalition.

NBC's Curry Again Relays Anti-U.S.
"Public Opinion" in Baghdad

NBC's Ann Curry keeps treating the anti-American views of supposedly average Iraqis as relevant. The morning after President Bush's State of the Union address a story by Curry offered this reaction from a supposedly typical Iraqi, a man in a suit who declared in English: "I say to Mr. Bush, keep your nose out of our, out of our affairs." For more, see the January 30 CyberAlert:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2003/cyb20030130.asp#3 [1]

This morning, just hours before Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the UN Security Council, Curry relayed from Baghdad on Today:
"On the streets of Baghdad the word to the U.S. is essentially, 'put up or shut up!' People here just don't believe their President is hiding weapons of mass destruction. These men say the inspectors have found nothing because Iraq has nothing to hide, that the U.S. government's real agenda is to seize Iraq's oil fields."

On the February 5 Today, Curry checked in from Baghdad. As transcribed by MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens, Curry announced:
"Powell's presentation today is going to be adding to the already mounting pressure on Iraq as chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix warned Saddam on Tuesday, 'It is five minutes until midnight.' Saddam, himself, is speaking out in his first television interview in 12 years, aired first in Britain last night."
Saddam Hussein, through interpreter: "-that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever. We challenge anyone who claims that we have, to bring forward any evidence and present it to public opinion."
Curry: "Peace activist Tony Benn asked six questions in the hour long interview. To the question: 'Do you have links with Al Qaeda?' Saddam answered, 'We have no relationship with Al Qaeda.' Why is Saddam talking now? It's a propaganda exercise to stoke the anti-war movement, according to the author of a book in Saddam."
Con Coughlin, author of King of Terror: "He wants to string out the whole UN process to the points where it's no longer possible for the west to take military action against him."
Curry then relayed public opinion, as if it can truly be captured or matters in a totalitarian state: "Meantime, on the streets of Baghdad the word to the U.S. is essentially, 'put up or shut up!' People here just don't believe their President is hiding weapons of mass destruction. These men say the inspectors have found nothing because Iraq has nothing to hide, that the U.S. government's real agenda is to seize Iraq's oil fields. And Iraq's newspapers like this one, owned by Saddam's son Uday, are already calling Powell's evidence, the evidence he will present today, 'vague, cheap' and also 'fabricated.' And just an excuse to launch an already decided war against Iraq. Katie and Matt back to you."

Curry's only advantage over al-Jazeera is she speaks English.

MRC's Bozell in National Review Online
Debate on Liberal Bias

National Review Online today features a debate with MRC President Brent Bozell facing off against left-wing writer Eric Alterman. Topic: "Are the Media Liberal?"

Alterman, author of a new book, What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, took a snide swipe at fans of the books about the reality of liberal media bias penned by Ann Coulter and Bernard Goldberg:
"But of course we all know that quite a few of you are too smart to believe that silly nonsense about the media being 'liberal.' I'm here on this site to tell you guys the jig is up. It's time to come clean. You've milked this cow long enough and she done died. Here's how I put it in the book: (And for you Goldberg/Coulter fans, those little numbers are called 'footnotes.' They allow other people to check your work.)"

Actually, Coulter's book had hundreds of footnotes.

Bozell observed:
"What, exactly, is a liberal denying when he denies a liberal bias in the media? Most journalists continue to promote the mythology that bias is nonexistent in the news business, an amazing proposition given that it is impossible not to be biased. What is news? What is the day's top news story? What is to be the lead? Who is to be cited? What ought to be the conclusion? These and so many others are the daily questions a reporter faces, and every single one demands a subjective, biased response. So why do so many journalists deny the obvious? First and foremost, because they really do believe their liberalism is mainstream.
"But wait! Stop the presses! Extra! Extra! Bias has been found! After all these years suddenly these same journalists are finding that a conservative bias -- yes, indeedy, a conservative bias dominates the press because the Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh control the world, or something."

To read all of what Bozell and Alterman argued:
http://www.nationalreview.com/debates/debates020503.asp [2]

TONIGHT ON CNN. Brent Bozell [3] is scheduled to debate Eric Alterman during the second half of the 7:30pm EST half hour of Crossfire.

"Top Ten Things Dumb Guys Think the
U.N. Does"

From the February 4 Late Show with David Letterman, the "Top Ten Things Dumb Guys Think the U.N. Does." Late Show Web page: http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/ [4]

10. Hosts the Miss World pre-pageant cocktail party

9. Puts inspection tags in new pants

8. Decides when a model officially becomes a supermodel

7. Determines which world problems require a call to Batman

6. Produces General Foods International Coffees

5. On Tuesday nights, broadcasts "Buffy The Vampire Slayer"

4. Provides steady employment for guys named Blix

3. Makes globes

2. Assigns grade of "mild," "medium," or "hot" to salsa

1. "I don't know, but go Cornhuskers!"

If the French get their way, any one of these items is about all the UN will be good for. -- Brent Baker [5]