The Columbus Institute of Contemporary Journalism (CICJ) has operated Freepress.org since 2000 and ColumbusFreepress.com was started initially as a separate project to highlight the print newspaper and local content.
ColumbusFreepress.com has been operating as a project of the CICJ for many years and so the sites are now being merged so all content on ColumbusFreepress.com now lives on Freepress.org
The Columbus Freepress is a non-profit funded by donations we need your support to help keep local journalism that isn't afraid to speak truth to power alive.
Three and a half years ago, some key information about U.N.
weapons inspectors in Iraq briefly surfaced on the front pages=
of
American newspapers -- and promptly vanished. Now, with=
righteous
war drums beating loudly in Washington, let's reach deep down=
into
the news media's Orwellian memory hole and retrieve the story.
"U.S. Spied on Iraq Under U.N. Cover, Officials Now Say," a
front-page New York Times headline announced on Jan. 7, 1999.=
The
article was unequivocal: "United States officials said today=
that
American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations
arms inspectors ferreting out secret Iraqi weapons programs....=
By
being part of the team, the Americans gained a first-hand=
knowledge
of the investigation and a protected presence inside Baghdad."
A day later, a followup Times story pointed out: "Reports=
that
the United States used the United Nations weapons inspectors in
Iraq as cover for spying on Saddam Hussein are dimming any=
chances
that the inspection system will survive."
With its credibility badly damaged by the spying, the U.N.
inspection system did not survive. Another factor in its demise=
was
the U.S. government's declaration that sanctions against Iraq=
would
remain in place whether or not Baghdad fully complied with the
inspection regimen.
But such facts don't assist the conditioned media reflex of
blaming everything on Saddam Hussein. No matter how hard you=
search
major American media databases of the last couple of years for
mention of the spy caper, you'll come up nearly empty. George
Orwell would have understood.
Instead of presenting a complete relevant summary of past
events, mainstream U.S. journalists and politicians are glad to
focus on tactical pros and cons of various aggressive military
scenarios. While a few pundits raise cautious warning flags,=
even
the most absurd Swiss-cheese rationales for violently forcing a
"regime change" in Baghdad routinely pass without challenge.
In late July, a Wall Street Journal essay by a pair of
ex-Justice Department attorneys claimed that the U.S. would be
"fully within its rights" to attack Iraq and overthrow the
regime -- based on "the customary international law doctrine of
anticipatory self-defense." Of course, if we're now supposed to
claim that "anticipatory self-defense" is a valid reason for
starting a war, then the same excuse could be used by the Iraqi
government to justify an attack on the United States (even=
setting
aside the reality that the U.S. has been bombing "no fly zones"
inside Iraq for years).
Among the first to testify at the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee's recent hearing on Iraq was "strategy scholar"=
Anthony
Cordesman, a former Pentagon and State Department official. He
participated in the tradition of touting another round of
taxpayer-funded carnage as a laudable innovation -- "our first
preemptive war."
Speaking alongside Cordesman was Richard Butler, the head=
of
the U.N. weapons inspection program in Iraq at the time that it=
was
spying for Washington. At the Senate hearing, Butler suggested=
that
perhaps the Russian government could be induced to tell Baghdad:
"You will do serious arms control or you're toast."
Like countless other officials treated with great deference=
by
the national press corps, Butler strives to seem suave and=
clever
as he talks up the wisdom of launching high-tech attacks certain=
to
incinerate troops and civilians. As a matter of routine, U.S.
journalists are too discreet to bring up unpleasant pieces of
history that don't fit in with the slanted jigsaw picture of
American virtue.
With many foreign-policy issues, major news outlets
demonstrate a remarkable ability to downplay or totally jettison
facts that Washington policymakers don't want to talk about. The
spy story that broke in early 1999 is a case in point. But the
brief flurry of critical analysis that occurred at the time=
should
now be revisited.
"That American spies have operations in Iraq should be no
surprise," a Hartford Courant editorial said on Jan. 10, 1999.
"That the spies are using the United Nations as a cover is
deplorable."
While noting "Saddam Hussein's numerous complaints that=
U.N.
inspection teams included American spies were apparently not
imaginary," the newspaper mentioned that the espionage=
operatives
"planted eavesdropping devices in hopes of monitoring forces=
that
guarded Mr. Hussein as well as searching for hidden arms
stockpiles."
The U.S. news media quickly lost interest in that story. We
should ask why.
________________________________________
Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive
Media." His syndicated column focuses on media and politics.
