[Peace-discuss] Bush's War on PBS -- live chat with Michael Kirk on Wednesday

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Published on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
	Frontline: Too Timid, Too Little, Too Late
	by Ray McGovern

Frontline’s “Bush’s War” on PBS Monday and Tuesday evening was a nicely 
put-together rehash of the top players’ trickery that led to the attack on Iraq, 
together with the power-grabbing, back-stabbing, and limitless incompetence of 
the occupation.

Except for an inside-the-beltway tidbit here and there-for example, about how 
the pitiable secretary of state Colin Powell had to suffer so many indignities 
at the hands of other type-A hard chargers, Frontline added little to the 
discussion. Notably missing was any allusion to the unconscionable role the 
Fourth Estate adopted as indiscriminate cheerleader for the home team; nor was 
there any mention that the invasion was a serious violation of international 
law. But those omissions, I suppose, should have come as no surprise.

Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and 
Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel. It was more 
infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of 
what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation’s history.

Despite recent acknowledgements from the likes of Alan Greenspan, Gen. John 
Abizaid, and others that oil and permanent (or, if you prefer, “enduring”) 
military bases were among the main objectives, Frontline avoided any real 
discussion of such delicate factors. Someone not already aware of how our media 
has become a tool of the Bush administration might have been shocked at how 
Frontline could have missed one of President George W. Bush’s most telling 
“signing statements.” Underneath the recent Defense Authorization Act, he wrote 
that he did not feel bound by the law’s explicit prohibition against using the 
funding:

     “(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of 
providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or

     “(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

So the Frontline show was largely pap.
At one point, however, the garrulous former Deputy Secretary of State Richard 
Armitage did allude to one of the largest elephants in the living room-Israel’s 
far-right Likudniks-and their close alliance with the so-called 
neo-conservatives running our policy toward the Middle East. But Armitage did so 
only tangentially, referring to the welcome (if totally unrealistic) promise by 
Ahmed Chalabi that, upon being put in power in Baghdad, he would recognize 
Israel. Not surprisingly, the interviewer did not pick up on that comment; 
indeed, I’m surprised the remark avoided the cutting room floor.

Courage No Longer a Frontline Hallmark

Frontline has done no timely reportage that might be looked upon as disparaging 
the George W. Bush administration-I mean, for example, the real aims behind the 
war, not simply the gross incompetence characterizing its conduct. Like so many 
others, Frontline has been, let’s just say it, cowardly in real time-no doubt 
intimidated partly by attacks on its funding that were inspired by the White House.

And now? Well the retrospective criticism of incompetence comes as polling shows 
two-thirds of the country against the Iraq occupation (and the number is surely 
higher among PBS viewers). So, Frontline is repositioning itself as a mild 
ex-post-facto critic of the war, but still unwilling to go very far out on a 
limb. Explaining the aims behind war crimes can, of course, be risky. It is as 
though an invisible Joseph Goebbels holds sway.

Too Late

On Monday evening I found myself initially applauding Frontline’s matter- 
of-fact, who-shot-John chronology of how our country got lied into attacking and 
occupying Iraq. Then I got to thinking-have I not seen this picture before? Many 
times?

It took a Hollywood producer to recognize and act promptly on the con games that 
sober observers could not miss as the war progressed. Where were the celebrated 
“weapons of mass destruction” (WMD)? Robert Greenwald simply could not abide the 
president’s switch to “weapons of mass destruction programs,” which presumably 
might be easier to find than the much-ballyhooed WMD so heavily advertised 
before the attack on Iraq. You remember-those remarkable WMD about which UN 
chief inspector Hans Blix quipped that the U.S. had one hundred percent 
certainty of their existence in Iraq, but zero percent certainty as to where 
they were.

Robert Greenwald called me in May 2003. He had read a few of the memoranda 
published by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) exposing the 
various charades being acted out by the administration and wanted to know what 
we thought of the president’s new circumlocution on WMD.

I complimented him on smelling a rat and gave him names of my VIPS colleagues 
and other experienced folks who could fill him in on the details. Wasting no 
time, he arrived here in Washington in June, armed simply with copious notes and 
a cameraman. Greenwald conducted the interviews, flew back to his eager young 
crew in Hollywood and, poof, the DVD “Uncovered: The War on Iraq” was released 
at the beginning of November 2003.”

So Frontline is four and a half years behind a Hollywood producer with 
appropriate interest and skepticism. (Full disclosure: I appear in “Uncovered,” 
as do many of the interviewees appearing in Frontline’s “Bush’s War.”)

Actually, the interviewing by Frontline occurred just a few months later. I know 
because I was among those interviewed for that as well, as was my good friend 
and former colleague at the CIA, Mel Goodman. I was struck that Mel looked four 
years younger on this week’s Frontline. It only then dawned on me that he was 
four years younger when interviewed.

Have a look at “Uncovered,” [http://www.truthuncovered.com/index.php ] and see 
how you think it compares to Frontline’s “Bush’s War.”

Safety in Retrospectives

It also struck me that producing a Frontline-style retrospective going back 
several years is a much less risky genre to work with. Chalk it up to my 
perspective as an intelligence analyst, but ducking the incredibly important 
issues at stake over the next several months is, in my opinion, unconscionable. 
The troop “surge” in Iraq, for example.

Only toward the very end of the program does Frontline allow a bit of relevant 
candor on a point that has been self-evident since Cheney and Bush, against 
strong opposition from Generals Abizaid and Casey (and apparently even 
Rumsfeld), decided to double down by sending 30,000 more troops into Iraq. A 
malleable new secretary of defense would deal with the recalcitrant generals and 
pick a Petreaus ex Machina of equal malleability and political astuteness to 
implement this stop-gap plan.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist/author Steve Coll, with typical candor, put 
the “surge” into perspective:

     “The decision at a minimum guaranteed that his [Bush’s] presidency would 
not end with a defeat in history’s eyes; that by committing to the surge, he was 
certain to at least achieve a stalemate.”

Given this week’s fresh surge of violence as the U.S. surge is scheduled to wind 
down, even a stalemate may be in some doubt. But, okay, small kudos to Frontline 
for including that bit of truth-however obvious-and for adding the grim 
background music to its final comment: “Soon Bush’s war will be handed to 
someone else.”

Rather Not, Thank You

Intimidation of the media is what has happened all around, including with 
Frontline, which not so many years ago was able to do some gutsy reporting. Let 
me give you another example about which few are aware.

Do you remember when Dan Rather made his Apologia Pro Vita Sua, admitting that 
the American media, including him, was failing to reveal the truth about things 
like Iraq? Speaking to the BBC on May 16, 2002, Rather compared the situation to 
the fear of “necklacing” in South Africa:

     “It’s an obscene comparison,” Rather said, “but there was a time in South 
Africa when people would put flaming tires around peoples’ necks if they 
dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be neck-laced here, you will 
have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.”

     Talking to another reporter, Dan told it straight about the careerism that 
keeps US journalists in line. “It’s that fear that keeps [American] journalists 
from asking the toughest of the tough questions and to continue to bore-in on 
the tough questions so often.”

The comparison to “necklacing” may be “obscene” but, sadly, it is not far off 
the mark. So what happened to the newly outspoken Dan Rather with the newly 
found courage, when he ran afoul of Vice President Dick Cheney and the immense 
pressure he exerts on the corporate media?

We know about the lies and the cheerleading for attacking Iraq. But there is 
much more most of us do not know and remain unable to learn if Rather and other 
one-time journalists keep acting like Bert Lahr’s cowardly lion in the Wizard of 
Oz before he gets “the nerve” and courage.

For Dan Rather, the fear would simply not go away…even after leaving CBS for 
HDNet and promising that, on his new “Dan Rather Reports” show, viewers would 
see hard-hitting and courageous reporting that he said he couldn’t do at CBS.

Will it surprise you that Dan Rather cannot shake the necklace? I refer 
specifically to a program for “Dan Rather Reports,” meticulously prepared by 
award-winning producer, Kristina Borjesson. The special included interviews with 
an impressive string of first-hand witnesses to neocon machinations prior to the 
US attack on Iraq, and provides real insights into motivations-the kind of 
insights Frontline did not even attempt.

Nipped in the Bud by the “Dark Side”

Last year Borjesson’s taping was finished and the editing had begun. Borjesson’s 
requests to interview people working for the vice president had been denied. 
But, following standard journalistic practice (not to mention common courtesy), 
she sent an email to John Hannah in Cheney’s office in order to give Hannah a 
chance to react to what others-including several of the same senior folks on 
Frontline last evening- had said about him for her forthcoming report.
At that point all hell broke loose. Borjesson was abruptly told by Rather’s 
executive producer that by sending the email, Borjesson could have “brought down 
the whole (‘Dan Rather Reports’) operation.”

The show was killed and Borjesson sacked. For good measure, she was also accused 
of “coaching” interview subjects and taking their words out of context. Since 
neither Rather nor his executive producer would provide proof to substantiate 
that allegation, Borjesson took the unprecedented step of sending her script and 
transcripts to all her interview subjects, asking them to confirm or deny that 
she had coached them or taken their words out of context. Not one of them found 
her script inaccurate or said they were coached. She has the emails to prove this.

This sorry episode and Frontline’s careful avoidance of basic issues like the 
strategic aims of the Bush administration in invading and occupying Iraq are 
proof, if further proof were needed, that the White House, and especially 
Cheney’s swollen office, exert enormous pressure over what we are allowed to see 
and hear. The fear they instill in the corporate press, and in what once was 
serious investigative reporting of programs like Frontline, translates into 
programs getting neutered or killed outright-and massive public ignorance.

Some consolation is to be found in the good news that, in this particular case, 
Kristina Borjesson is made of stronger stuff; she has not given up, and was 
greatly encouraged by how many of the very senior officials and former officials 
she had already interviewed consented to be re-interviewed (since the tapes 
belonged to the “Rather Not” folks).

Now who looks forward to being re-interviewed?

Borjesson’s original interviewees took into account her problems with the 
cowards and the censors-and her atypical, gutsy refusal to self-censor-and went 
the extra mile. A tribute to them as well, and their interest in getting the 
truth out.

Borjesson is now completing the program on her own. Look for an announcement in 
the coming months, if you’re interested in real sustenance rather than the 
pabulum served up, no doubt under duress, by Frontline.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical 
Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington, DC. He was an Army 
infantry/intelligence officer in the early sixties, then a CIA analyst for 27 
years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals 
for Sanity (VIPS).

[This article originally appeared on Consortiumnews.com.]


Karen Medina wrote:
> Peace Discuss,
> 
> Has anyone else been watching "Bush's War" on PBS produced by Frontline? The
> first episode was last night. The second is tonight (Tuesday, March 25, 2008;
> 8pm-10pm).
> 
> Part 1 was very good, and covered some of the same information as "Taxi to
> the Dark Side" about the detentions and the Administration's encouraging the
> use of torture. You can watch it online if you missed it.
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
> 
> "Bush's War" is a two-part special exploring how the war on Iraq began, from
> deep inside the US government.
> 
> Online, you can: * watch the full program, * view the timeline with
> annotations and videos, and * see over 400 extended interviews, More
> informally, you can: * join a discussion, * join a live chat with the
> producer, Michael Kirk, on Wednesday at 10am our time (11am Eastern Time
> because it is with the Washington Post).
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/03/16/DI2008031602418.html
> 
> 
> Part 1 was last night (Monday, March 24, 2008) "Part 1 of Bush's War tells
> the story of this behind-the-scenes battle over whether Iraq would be the
> next target in the war on terror.[...]On one side, Secretary of State Colin
> Powell and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet squared off against
> Vice President Dick Cheney and his longtime ally, Secretary of Defense Donald
> Rumsfeld. The battles were over policy -- whether to attack Iraq; the role of
> Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi; how to treat detainees; whether to seek United
> Nations resolutions; and the value of intelligence suggesting a connection
> between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks -- but the conflict was deeply
> personal." View the chapters of part 1:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/view/main.html
> 
> Part 2 is tonight (Tuesday, March 25, 2008) "Part 2 of Bush's War examines
> that war -- beginning with the quick American victory in Iraq, the early
> mistakes that were made, and then recounting the story of how chaos, looting
> and violence quickly engulfed the country.
> 
> As American forces realized they were unprepared for the looting that
> followed the invasion, plans for a swift withdrawal of troops were put on
> hold. With only a few weeks' preparation, American administrator L. Paul
> Bremer was sent to find a political solution to a rapidly deteriorating
> situation. Bremer's first moves were to disband the Iraqi military and remove
> members of Saddam Hussein's party from the government. They were decisions
> that the original head of reconstruction, Gen. Jay Garner (Ret.), begged
> Bremer to reconsider at the time. Now they are seen by others as one of the
> first in a series of missteps that would lead Iraq into a full-blown
> insurgency."
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list 
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net 
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss