CNN edits 800 words of Blix transcript to remove refutation of Powell's smoking gun

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 04:39

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/news-cnnedit.html

How in the world do you trust a 'news' organiztion like CNN, when they offer what purports to be a full transcript of Hans Blix' address to the UN Security Council but they leave out nearly 800 words - and those words just happen to be the ones where Blix refutes Colin Powell's 'smoking gun' presentation from earlier this week?

Here is CNN's transcript http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/spr....1/index.html.
Here is the BBC's http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763653.stm.

NOTE: Since the original publication of this article, CNN has added the missing text to their web page. We've already gotten emails questioning our veracity regarding this matter, so we went to Google Cache and found the original page as it looked before CNN made the correction. View the page we saved from Google Cache here http://www.takebackthemedia.com/blix-un/blix-un.html . Comparison should be madw between the cached page and the page as it looks now, which can be seen by clicking the CNN link above.

In the public interest, here is the section of the Blix address that CNN chose not to put on their web site:

""I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items.

This was welcomed.

A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes.

It is headed by the former minister of oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.

The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence.

They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us, and the world, that this is a serious effort.

The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting.

The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq.

So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview.

Three persons that had previously refused interviews on Unmovic's terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February.

These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms.

I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted without any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility.

At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr ElBaradei and I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session.

This is a positive step.

Mr President, I should like to make some comments on the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq. A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full co-operation on "process" - granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors - and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material.

However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process.

I remember how, in 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on information received from a government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear
weapons programme.

It was realised that an international organisation authorised to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of information obtained from
governments with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors, and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material.

It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

This remains true and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.

International organisations need to analyse such information critically and especially benefit when it comes from more than one source.

The intelligence agencies, for their part, must protect their sources and methods.

Those who provide such information must know that it will be kept in strict confidence and be known to very few people.

Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing.

However, we must recognise that there are limitations and that misinterpretations can occur.

Intelligence information has been useful for Unmovic.

In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found.

In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found.

Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions.

It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

The presentation of intelligence information by the US secretary of state suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes.

I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot.

This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect.

We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart."

-----------------------------------------
Proof of a coercive bias in mainstream American media?

Nubclear · February 20, 2003, 04:40

3rd thread?

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 04:41

Shh!

I have never posted more than two threads but there was a lot of interesting news tonight.

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 05:40

A pity no one else finds this interesting.

Urban Ranger · February 20, 2003, 05:48

It is interesting. All this little bits and pieces are indicating that W.'s plan is falling apart the the seams.

If there's no evidence of wrongdoings on Iraqi's part, Dubya will be caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. He can move ahead with an invasion without UN's blessing, but Blair might not be able to push that. Furthermore, he can't use any of the bases in the Arab countries, and Turkey wants $ for it. If he withdraws, he will suffer a devestating blow personally from which he will not be able to recover.

Rufus T. Firefly · February 20, 2003, 05:56

Damned liberal media!

Oh, wait...

monkspider · February 20, 2003, 05:57

I agree UR, Bush does seem to be in a pretty pickle right now.

Main_Brain · February 20, 2003, 07:47

It US Media so I dont blame them.

Sava · February 20, 2003, 08:41

I would be upset if I were surprised. I'm sure the hawks are saying CNN was just being patriotic.

mrmitchell · February 20, 2003, 08:46

Wait...

Do people actually take CNN as real 'news'? What have they been smoking?

mrmitchell · February 20, 2003, 08:55

Uh, UR....

We're the US. We can fake the evidence if we want to and 95% of Americans will believe it and a good 80% of the rest of the developed world will believe it.

KrazyHorse · February 20, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

a good 80% of the rest of the developed world will believe it

That's where you're wrong...

Adam Smith · February 20, 2003, 10:21

It is unconscionable for CNN not to include the relevant portion of the transcript.

However, I do not see how omitted portion, as quoted by Monkspider, refutes a "smoking gun" argument. First, before the SC meeting Powell explicitly said that he did NOT have a smoking gun. This is the difference between proof and evidence, which I think some people are forgetting. Powell presented what I think was fairly compelling evidence of evasion. Using this as evidence of WOMD is one step further removed, but still something that cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Second, I see no evidence in the quoted portion why Powell's evidence should be dismissed, other than saying the photos were taken "several weeks apart". Trucks and bulldozers do not just appear at a now-empty site in the desert for no reason. The fact that the photos were takes "several weeks apart" should surely be no reason to ignore the evdence entirely.

Lastly, who in the world came up with the idea of Iraq passing "legislation" prohibiting WOMD? If this is the kind of "serious consequences" we can expect from the UN, then we are all in trouble.

JohnT · February 20, 2003, 10:58

Following is a quote of the passages that immediately precede and follow the above, as it reads in the cached Google site:

Quote:

As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been and remains an important reason why quantities of chemicals had been deemed unaccounted for, the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance.

The reported movement of munitions at the site could just as easily have been a routine activity as a movement of proscribed munitions in anticipation of imminent inspection.

A couple of points:

1. It doesn't read well. The two paragraphs obviously have no relation to each other, and it is also obvious that something is wrong with this transcript. Had CNN been deliberately editing out remarks (as is questioned by the TBTM site), they could have done a far, far better job in making it less noticable.

2. They didn't even remove the "smoking gun" statement, which is the portion that is italicized above. Duh!

Sorry, but what you're looking at is a mistake that is being blown into a controversy by people whose careers depend upon them doing stuff like this*.

Try again.

*This is not a criticism of the fine folks at TBTM, just an observation of how the world works. This is what they do, and it is not inconceivable that they would err on the side of their beliefs.

Ozz · February 20, 2003, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I would be upset if I were surprised. I'm sure the hawks are saying CNN was just being patriotic.

CNN is a israeli propaganda machine not a "news" source.

Az · February 20, 2003, 11:28

Yes, and google is watching you.

Boris Godunov · February 20, 2003, 12:47

I've been dismayed with CNN sinking to Fox levels of infotainment for a long time, but this just makes me furious. How a news organization can purport to have high standards and then go and do this is beyond me.

Looks like BBC is going to be more and more my definitive news source.

JohnT · February 20, 2003, 12:52

As I noted, it is highly doubtful that this was a deliberate attempt by CNN to mislead anybody. OTOH, it is highly probable that this is a deliberate attempt to stir up controversy where none exists. Same thing is done by the people at the Media Research Center (who do the same thing, but on the conservative side).

OmniDude · February 20, 2003, 13:20

JohnT, though I am appaled by the way the "Wolfowitz Cabal" apparently is running the show in Washington at the moment, I second your view.

Though I'm sure CNN as well as the Big 3 has a editorial bias in favor of the current administration, they KNOW that their every step is being carefully scrutinized by TBTM and others. Their speedy reposting of the full speech would rather indicate, that some web editor with right wing sympathies tried to pull a fast one on his own.

Imran Siddiqui · February 20, 2003, 13:32

JohnT:

News people can make mistakes too, guys

.

OneFootInTheGrave · February 20, 2003, 15:31

so can liberal media too!

(make mistakes)

Dis · February 20, 2003, 16:29

I have trouble believing this. Maybe CNN isn't as liberal as I thought.

Sprayber · February 20, 2003, 16:57

Can someone tell me how CNN can be both the leader of the liberal media and pro Bush Administration. The nuts on both sides are the real threat to America. Those who invest themselves in conspiracy theories of all sorts and always mutualy exclusively. Moderation has been lost in this country and some people on this board who automaticaly see conspiracy behind every turn contribute nothing to saving it. You will believe anything as long as it makes you feel you are right. When someone like John T presents a plauseable solution, it is ignored bucause it is not cool to believe that an organization simply made a mistake.

This goes for both sides. Left or right.

Kramerman · February 20, 2003, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I've been dismayed with CNN sinking to Fox levels of infotainment for a long time, but this just makes me furious. How a news organization can purport to have high standards and then go and do this is beyond me.

Looks like BBC is going to be more and more my definitive news source.

good for you... join us... the BBC devotees' ranks grow, day by day

Kramerman · February 20, 2003, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
Can someone tell me how CNN can be both the leader of the liberal media and pro Bush Administration. The nuts on both sides are the real threat to America. Those who invest themselves in conspiracy theories of all sorts and always mutualy exclusively. Moderation has been lost in this country and some people on this board who automaticaly see conspiracy behind every turn contribute nothing to saving it. You will believe anything as long as it makes you feel you are right. When someone like John T presents a plauseable solution, it is ignored bucause it is not cool to believe that an organization simply made a mistake.

This goes for both sides. Left or right.

(I have 3 arms)

Sava · February 20, 2003, 19:27

Some people mistake my dong for a third arm...

KrazyHorse · February 20, 2003, 19:32

Quote:

good for you... join us... the BBC devotees' ranks grow, day by day

I check CNN for an American slant, the CBC for national (Canadian) news...and the BBC for serious reporting.

I got sick of CNN a while ago.

Sprayber · February 20, 2003, 20:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Some people mistake my dong for a third arm...

What exactly does the currency of Vietnam have to do with this?

mrmitchell · February 20, 2003, 20:21

I'm still shocked that people actually use CNN for a news source.

BTW, Frogger, most people in the rest of the developed world aren't the crack news-analyzers on Apolyton. They're lazy complacent losers like the rest of us.

(The trick is that only Americans are identified as lazy complacent losers. Not that Americans aren't lazy complacent losers. I'm just saying that the LCL-ratio is close. Well, maybe America has a few hundred times more LCLs. Whatever. If you rework the data with some rounding in a few key places it all works out.)

Kramerman · February 21, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Some people mistake my dong for a third arm...

your dong has fingers!?