Interesting People mailing list archives

The NYT and WMD: Finally, the Necessary Evidence


From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:54:23 -0700


------ Forwarded Message
From: Barry Ritholtz <ritholtz () optonline net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:10:46 -0400
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: The NYT and WMD: Finally, the Necessary Evidence

Hi Dave,

I'll bet that yesterday's NYT article, "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of
War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" <
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/
21CHEM.html > will be rabidly linked by many who hope to show it
justifies the war due to Saddam's WMD. Actually, its more a testament
to how skillfully the present administration has spun the war. (See for
example, "Even Critics of War Say the White House Spun It With Skill"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/international/worldspecial/
20BUSH.html).

Counterpunch.org asserts that the NYT was set up; It's worth the time
to read both pieces.

-Barry



April 22, 2003
The NYT and WMD:  Finally, the Necessary Evidence
by GARY LEUPP

Some thoughts on Judith Miller's piece "Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of
War, an Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert" (New York Times, April 21).
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/
21CHEM.html>
I recommend this article for everyone's careful reading.

Imagine you are Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense [sic] and de
facto Secretary of State. You (and that marionette, some of whose
strings you pull, and some of whose strings Powell pulls, depending on
the day) have insisted for many months that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction threatening me here in Boston. Your troops encountered no
such weapons in their invasion, and have found none since the
occupation began. This might strike some as embarrassing. You are a
billionaire and so need have no need for shame, but Powell whines about
international opinion, and some action seems in order to assure the
world and even your own people that the pretext for war was valid. You
apply yourself to that task with your wonted shrewdness and efficiency.

The last thing you want is for that Blix fellow, who you had Wolfowitz
investigate early on in the Bush presidency, to go prowling around
actually hunting for the weapons in a professional manner. You don't
want the U.N. in, conducting some unserviceable lame-ass investigation
which, you've stated from the outset, will never find anything. One
option is to simply fed-ex the anthrax to Iraq and stage its discovery,
rather like you staged the jubilant welcome by kids waving U.S. flags
on one or more streets in Baghdad as it was liberated. There are risks
in that, which you've listed and mulled over carefully. A more refined
approach would be to plant a story in the New York Times , a reliable
vehicle in the past for such operations, somewhat along the following
lines.

You announce that an unnamed Iraqi scientist (unnamed for his own
security reasons, since he might face "reprisals" from some unnamed
somebody in newly-free Iraq), a scientist unavailable for interview by
reporters, has told U.S. authorities that on the eve of the U.S.
invasion, Saddam's regime "destroyed chemical weapons and biological
warfare equipment" and that U.S. investigators have visited the site of
destruction, and confirmed the scientist's story. (So the Iraqis,
facing immanent invasion, saw fit to destroy powerful weapons
threatening the whole world, anticipating defeat but hoping to
embarrass the victors by eliminating evidence for the pretext of that
invasion. Makes good sense, don't it?)

More. You have this scientist wax helpfully loquacious, informing you
"that Iraq had secretly sent unconventional weapons and technology to
Syria, starting in the mid-1990's." This abets your faction in the
ongoing discussion of the timing of the Syria regime change effort
you've advocated for years. And have him also note "that more recently
Iraq was cooperating with Al Qaeda," confirming a tie you announced the
day after Sept. 11 to widespread and enduring, irksome skepticism.

You allow a New York Times reporter, who was not permitted to interview
the scientist, nor visit his home, nor permitted to write about this
momentous discovery for three days, whose copy was submitted for a
check by military officials, to reveal this information to the world.
You announce that this is the best evidence "to date" (as though one or
more other shreds of evidence had been unearthed recently), adding that
"it may be the discovery," so others might not be necessary.

Quite brilliant. You have to admire such audacity. But I think of the
opening passage of the samurai epic, Heike Monogatari , that chronicles
the inevitable downfall of a ruling circle less obnoxious that the one
now wreaking havoc on Iraq. "The proud do not endure, they are like a
dream on a spring night; the mighty fall at last, they are as dust
before the wind."

In the meantime, let us not let them throw dust in our eyes.

Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts
University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program. He can be reached
at: gleupp () tufts edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Barry L. Ritholtz
Chief Market Strategist
Maxim Group
britholtz () maximgrp com
(516) 918-5529
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Big Picture:  A blog of capital markets, geopolitics, with a dash
of film!
http://www.geocities.com/ritholtz/blog.html#chrysler


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: