Peterson Answers Kamm
UKWatch.net - 26 Jun 2008
Yesterday, we published a media alert (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080625_selling_the_fireball.php), in which we discussed our exchange with Times commentator, Bronwen Maddox. In response, Times commentator Oliver Kamm wrote to us: Gentlemen, I have read your latest media alert urging your supporters to lobby Browen [sic] Maddox, Chief Foreign Commentator of The Times. You ask Bronwen for a reference for her comment that the authors of the NIE report on Iran’s nuclear programme believe, with hindsight, that “they should have phrased it differently”. The reference is a statement by Admiral Michael McConnell, director of the National Intelligence Council, before the Senate Intelligence Committee on 5 February this year. Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana asked McConnell: “You just mentioned that if you had to do it over again [i.e. report on Iran’s nuclear programme] without the heat of the moment, some time to reflect, you would have changed a couple of things. What would you have changed?” McConnell replied: “I think I would change the way that we describe [the] nuclear program; I mean, put it up front, a little diagram, what are the component parts so that the reader could quickly grasp that a portion of it, I would argue, maybe even at least significant portion, was halted and there are other parts that continue.” You’ll find the exchange on page 32 of the transcript, here: http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080205_transcript.pdf It seems to me that you would be doing your own supporters a service if you were to try answering your own questions before launching imprecations at senior journalists who exercise unreasonable patience and courtesy in responding to you. Conversely, given that your supporters declare on your message board that the BBC World Service broadcasts “blatant propaganda for the Jewish religion”, I think Bronwen and the other commentators you target might be forgiven if they are unmoved by your complaints. Sincerely, Oliver Kamm To quickly address the last point, it is amazing that anyone would attempt to denigrate a website on the grounds that it hosted a particular comment posted by a member of the public. Presumably, then, media professionals should revile the Guardian editors, associated as they are with the paper?s Comment is Free website, which hosts all manner of outrageous comments. Maddox was a ?target?, not of ?complaints? or ?imprecations?, but of polite invitations to rational discussion of the facts. Kamm is arguing that these should be rejected on the grounds that a post he didn?t like appeared on our message board. Comment is indeed free, but sometimes superfluous. Media Lens is very much a collaborative effort. We are assisted by a large number of friends, including specialists and expert commentators in different fields. They are often incredibly generous in sending us advice, comments, references and other help. On this occasion, we circulated Kamm?s email to Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, David Peterson and others, hoping for a couple of comments in response. But Peterson went much further – he sent us a full demolition of both Maddox?s and Kamm?s arguments. There?s little point trying to gild the Peterson lily, so we are very happy to publish his reply as a Guest Media Alert. We would, though, first like to invite readers to reflect on how confidently the mainstream journalists recited the official propaganda line that the authors of the NIE report had radically changed their testimony to highlight the Iranian ?threat?. And notice how Maddox in particular strongly asserted that ?the IAEA’s report a few weeks ago… has injected the new urgency?, which had left the NIE report badly out of date. As we will see, in an almost identical replay of media performance in 2002-2003 over Iraq, these bold assertions are based on a heap of highly questionable government claims involving captured laptops and the like. It is also useful to compare the quality of Peterson?s analysis with that of Kamm and Maddox. The chasm in rationality tells us much about why the corporate media is doing such an appalling job of informing the public and in working to relieve human suffering. Peterson?s response: Dear David: What is changed in our reading of [the NIE report] Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (Dec. 3, 2007) by the little excerpt that Oliver Kamm produces from U.S. National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell’s testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Feb. 5, 2008)? Kamm believes that everything is changed. In point of fact, nothing is changed. In the passage quoted by Kamm, McConnell’s phrase is “nuclear program” – not nuclear weapons program. There is no question that Iran has a nuclear program. Bronwen Maddox had written that the NIE’s authors now believe it “gave too much attention to a perceived abandonment of an attempt to design actual weapons, and too little (the authors acknowledged) to two more serious points: the fact that there had been a weapons design programme, the first time that the US had said it had evidence of this; and the rapid progress of uranium enrichment, a much more difficult technical barrier to overcome than the design of a warhead.” I do not know by what criterion Iran has been determined to be making “rapid progress” in uranium enrichment – (a) Iran has been at it for years; (b) both the IAEA and Iran itself report that Iran has achieved a reactor-grade level of enrichment between 4% and 5%; and© aside from Washington’s capacity to influence the way these matters are treated internationally, what other reason could there be for calling this “rapid progress”? The source of the allegations about “actual weapons” and “weapons design” is dubious in the extreme. Here was how the Christian Science Monitor explained it three weeks ago: ?But there is a history of imperfect intelligence tips. A report in the Los Angeles Times last year quoted a senior diplomat at the IAEA saying that the CIA and other Western spy agencies had been giving sensitive information, but that ?since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong.? The story said US officials “privately acknowledge” that much of the evidence they had on Iran – including the detailed designs described in the current IAEA report, reportedly taken from a laptop stolen in Iran -?remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.?” (Scott Peterson, ?Nuclear report: parsing Iran’s intent,? June 5; http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0605/p06s02-wome.html?page=1) Because of the way the LA Times archives its material, this article at the moment is inaccessible to me. However, see Julian Borger?s article from February 23, 2007: ?One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a stolen laptop computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to IAEA officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran. “Tehran rejected the material as forgeries and there are still reservations about its authenticity in the IAEA, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency. ?First of all, if you have a clandestine programme, you don’t put it on laptops which can walk away,? one official said. ?The data is all in English which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you’d have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi. So there is some doubt over the provenance of the computer.? IAEA officials do not comment on intelligence passed to the watchdog agency by foreign governments, saying all such assistance is confidential.? (Borger, ?U.S. Intelligence on Iran Does Not Stand Up, Say Vienna Sources,? The Guardian, Feb. 23, 2007; http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/23/topstories3.usa) For another helpful report, also see Ewen MacAskill, ?Intelligence expert who rewrote book on Iran,? The Guardian, Dec. 8, 2007. Anyway. Bronwen Maddox makes her assertions on very weak (and my hunch is officially-sourced and meritless) grounds. Oliver Kamm’s use of Michael McConnell’s February 5, 2008 exchange with U.S. Senator Evan Bayh changes nothing in our reading of the December National Intelligence Estimate on Iran – most certainly nothing in a direction that warrants belief in Iran’s nuclear weapons threat to international peace and security. What is more, to resort to this exchange strikes me as an act of desperation. On the other hand, where Iran is concerned, the threat posed to international peace and security by the U.S.-Israel axis is as grave or graver than ever. But this is a categorically different point than one derived from U.S. and Israeli allegations about Iran’s nuclear program. Last Point. In an appearance by Oliver Kamm on the BBC’s Late Edition program Kamm was once asked a question that (to roughly paraphrase it) went something like this: The U.K. has nuclear weapons. The Government is proposing to upgrade them and to maintain them for decades to come. How do you justify denying nuclear weapons to other states such as Iran and North Korea, but accept the fact that the U.K. and U.S. not only keep but upgrade theirs? Kamm’s reply was: ?We are a civilized state. Iran and North Korea are not. It’s not just a matter of the way we conduct our own affairs. Iran has conducted systematic nuclear deception, while being a signatory to the [nuclear] non-proliferation treaty.? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WHGIxIIr18) Given that Oliver Kamm has placed himself within the “clash-of-civilizations” camp, on the civilized side of the great divide, no less, I for one may be forgiven if I am unmoved by his defense of Bronwen Maddox and the Washington regime’s allegation that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. And I trust that the rest of Media Lens’s supporters will be equally unmoved. David Peterson Chicago, USA davidepet@comcast.net Postscript. For the sake of the Media Lens archives, I will reproduce here the relevant excerpt from Michael McConnell’s February 5, 2008 exchange U.S. Senator Evan Bayh; three contemporaneous reports that dealt with Michael McConnell’s testimony; and an op-ed by John R. Bolton, wherein this quite brutal American pre-emptively attacks McConnell on the very day McConnell was scheduled to testify before the U.S. Senate: http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=9480#9480 SUGGESTED ACTION The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone. Write to Oliver Kamm Email: oliver.kamm@tiscali.co.uk Write to Bronwen Maddox at the Times Email: bronwen.maddox@thetimes.co.uk Please send a copy of your emails to us Email: editor@medialens.org The Media Lens book ?Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media? by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. For details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here: http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate We have a lively and informative message board: http://www.medialens.org/board

Zimbabwe and the Question of Imperialism: A Discussion
Democracy Now - 26 Jun 2008
In Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe has come under widespread criticism for refusing to cancel a run-off election scheduled for Friday. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won the first round of elections in March but withdrew from the run-off late last week. He has sought refuge in the Dutch embassy in Harare out of what he says is concern for his life. We host a discussion on Zimbabwe with University of Houston Professor, Gerald Horne, author of “From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War Against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980” and Syracuse University University Professor, Horace Campbell, his latest article is titled, “Pan-Africanists: Our collective duty to Zimbabwe.”

Haditha Massacre Victims’ Kin Outraged as U.S. Marines Go Free
Democracy Now - 26 Jun 2008
A U.S. military judge last week dismissed charges against another Marine connected to the massacre of twenty-four unarmed Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha. Of the eight Marines originally charged in the case, only one still faces prosecution. Criminal charges have been dismissed against six of the Marines and a seventh Marine was acquitted. We speak with McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau chief, Leila Fadel, who recently traveled to Haditha to interview survivors of the massacre.

Supreme Court Slashes Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Fine to One-Tenth of Original $5 Billion Ruling
Democracy Now - 26 Jun 2008
The Supreme Court handed corporate America a major victory this week when it sharply reduced the amount of money Exxon Mobil has to pay in punitive damages for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. An Alaskan jury had initially ruled Exxon should pay five billion dollars in punitive damages but in 2006, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court cut the award of punitive damages in half. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court cut the amount of punitive damages again and ordered Exxon Mobil to pay just $500 million in punitive damages ? one tenth of the original jury’s ruling.

Headlines for June 26, 2008
Democracy Now - 26 Jun 2008
U.S. Attacks Kill 8 Iraqis, Including Family, Bush Hosts Iraqi President for Talks on Long-Term Deal, Supreme Court Cuts Exxon Damages for Alaska Oil Spill, Justices End Executions for Child Rape, Amnesty International Erects Gitmo Cell on National Mall, Canadian Judge: U.S. Treatment of Khadr Amounts to Torture, Judge: NSA Not Compelled to Disclose Spying on Gitmo Attorneys, Senate Begins Debate on FISA Bill, Obama, Clinton to Hold Joint Rally, South Koreans Protest as U.S. Beef Imports Set to Resume, Mandela Criticizes Mugabe on Political Crisis, Cuba Approves Lung Cancer Vaccine, U.S. Mayors Call for Shunning Bottled Water, Countrywide Shareholders Approve Bank of America Deal, Intelligence Estimate Warns on Global Warming, Florida, Sugar Corp. Reach Everglades Deal, Internal Probe Faults Security Gaps at U.S. Nuclear Sites