Tag: United Press International

Same Old Al Gore

Al Gore gave a speech today hosted by MoveOn.Org which included easily debunked claims about Saddam Hussein and 9/11,

In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:

(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.

That’s simply not true. The administration said there was evidence that Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda, and pointed out Hussein’s praise for the 9/11 hijackers and other terrorists. It did not say that it had evidence that Iraq played a role in 9/11. As Bush said in his State of the Union Address,

Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Donald Rumsfeld offered a concise explanation of what the Administration should have been pushing more in months leading up to the war instead of fixating on the idea that Iraq posed an immediate threat with its weapons of mass destruction program,

The objective in the global war on terror is to prevent another attack like September 11th, or a biological, nuclear or chemical attack that would be worse, before it happens. We can say with confidence that the world is a better place today because the United States led a coalition of forces into action in Iraq.

Gore compounds his misstatement by repeating a false claim about the recently released report on 9/11,

For example, according to the just-released Congressional investigation, Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Therefore, whatever other goals it served — and it did serve some other goals — the decision to invade Iraq made no sense as a way of exacting revenge for 9/11.

The UPI originally made this claim in a July 23 article, and later was forced to retract it on July 29 after the report had been released and did not contain any information about Iraq. According to UPI,

Prior to the report’s publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U.S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.

One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. “They didn’t ask that question,” the person said.

Notice, by the way, that the UPI was apparently used by a source to plant a false story ahead of the release of the 9/11 report. And it worked — the main thing the former Vice President seems to know about the report is this false story.

I understand the need for journalists to maintain confidential sources, but when a source intentionally misleads in order to plant false stories the media should identify the source.

When the veracity of Bush’s statements about Iraq’s efforts to acquire uranium were called into doubt, the press demanded that the White House reveal who inserted those words into the State of the Union speech. When a corporation gets caught misleading investors, journalists demand that the source of the corruption be revealed and investigated, and often go as far as publishing confidential internal memos and e-mail to expose the wrongdoer.

But when the UPI runs a completely bogus story from an anonymous source, there’s absolutely no public accountability for that individual.

Sources:

U.S. Renews Claims of Hussein-Al Qaeda Link. Greg Miller and Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times, January 30, 2003.

9/11 spurred war, Rumsfeld says.Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, July 9, 2003.

More Scheer myth-spreading. Brendan Nyhan, Spinsanity.Com, August 6, 2003.

Former Vice President Al Gore Remarks to MoveOn.org. Al Gore, New York University, August 7, 2003.

President Delivers “State of the Union”. White House, January 28, 2003.

UPI ‘Journalist’ Defends Ecoterrorism

One of the things that frustrates me to no end is that very few reporters publish their e-mail addresses, so it is impossible for me to contact them and let them know just how inadequate they are. This morning it is United Press International’s Dan Whipple who wrote an op-ed on environmental terrorism that soft pedal’s the phenomenon based largely on his inability to actually do any research on the topic.

According to Whipple,

Despite a bonfire of publicity, and apocalyptic warnings from property rights activists and congressional committees, the list of ELF’s “accomplishments” is small: Two “actions” in 1996, three in 1997, eight in 1998, three in 1999, nine in 2000 and four in 2001.

In fact, ELF committed at least 22 actions in 2001 causing at least $1.6 million in damage (the actual damage total was probably closer to double that). How do I know this? Because the North American Liberation Front Press Office published a report listing all 2001 actions. Apparently Whipple prefers to just pull his numbers out of the air rather than go to the source.

Moreover, Whipple wonders if ELF terrorism is really terrorism,

Having pulled up a few survey stakes myself, I’m not in a position to take the high moral ground. But is it terrorism? Is even burning a restaurant — and we all know how tough it is to find a good restaurant — on the same level as blowing up the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Okla., or leveling the World Trade Center?

Is burning down an abortion clinic or a black church the same thing as flying a plane into a building? Of course not, but it is nonetheless still terrorism, as is environmental terrorism.

I also find it odd that UPI has hired as an environmental journalist someone who admits engaging in illegal acts to disrupt logging. Would they hire someone who admitted illegal acts in anti-abortion protests to cover women’s issues?

Whipple continues,

There is an enormous difference between principled civil disobedience — including monkeywrenching — and murder. The word “terrorism” has been thrown around too loosely.

I wonder if he’d feel that way if people burned down his house or the office where he works because of ideological reasons. Somehow, I doubt it.

Source:

Blue Planet: Ecoterrorism redefined. Dan Whipple, United Press International, Sept. 13, 2002.