CBS's news judgment: Monday's CBS Evening News devoted a first segment story to, as anchor Katie Couric put it, the “irony” that the Senate debate over resolutions on the Iraqi surge occurred “four years to the day” after Colin Powell made his presentation at the UN which “became an embarrassment.” Couric asked and answered: “And how's this for irony? Today's Capitol Hill confrontation began four years to the day after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a dramatic speech at the UN to make the case that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. It was a brilliant performance, enough to sell the Congress and the nation on going to war. But before long, it became an embarrassment.”
Of course, at the time nearly everyone believed what Powell believed, as evidenced by former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay who told CBS News Pentagon reporter David Martin that he was impressed with Powell's presentation. Martin moved on to other misguided assumptions, asserting “the intelligence about Iraq was not all wrong. On the eve of the invasion, CIA analysts, including Paul Pillar, warned the aftermath could get ugly." Martin also, however, pointed out that “bad intelligence about WMD started the war, but it can't be blamed for all that has happened since." Former CIA analyst John Brennan explained: “We would still have the same bloodshed, instability and destruction even if we did uncover those treasure troves of purported weapons.” So, the fourth anniversary of Powell's presentation about WMDs really isn't relevant to the current situation, but that didn't deter CBS from bringing it up.
Neither ABC's Word News or the NBC Nightly News brought up the four-year-old Powell presentation.
The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the video against the closed-captioning for the February 5 CBS Evening News story:
Katie Couric: "And how's this for irony? Today's Capitol Hill confrontation began four years to the day after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell made a dramatic speech at the UN to make the case that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. It was a brilliant performance, enough to sell the Congress and the nation on going to war. But before long, it became an embarrassment. National security correspondent David Martin looks back four years later."Colin Powell at the UN, February 5, 2003: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
David Martin: "That statement about the evidence Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction was made by one of the most trusted men in America. Weapons inspector David Kay remembers being impressed."
David Kay, former Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector: "It was partly because it came with Powell's reputation as much as the individual facts."
Martin: "He assumed the intelligence Powell had unveiled was only the tip of the iceberg."
Powell, at UN: "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails."
Kay: "To have detailed diagrams of what those labs looked like seemed to me it meant that you had pretty detailed intelligence from inside the program."
Martin: "But after the invasion, Kay was put in charge of finding the WMD, and he found out where those diagrams came from."
Kay: "It was a single source, a source that the U.S. intelligence had never at that point talked to, didn't know his name-"
Kay clip #2: "And, in fact, he was a fabricator."
Martin: "The intelligence about Iraq was not all wrong. On the eve of the invasion, CIA analysts, including Paul Pillar, warned the aftermath could get ugly."
Paul Pillar, former CIA counterterrorism officer: "It would be long, it would be turbulent, it would be filled with conflict and probably violence."
Martin: "But, says former CIA officer and now CBS consultant John Brennan, the administration passed over that intelligence."
John Brennan, CBS News terrorism analyst: "And I don't think there was enough attention paid to those assessments that said after the war, after the invasion, there's going to be difficulty in the streets of Iraq and in Baghdad."
Martin: "Bad intelligence about WMD started the war, but it can't be blamed for all that has happened since."
Brennan: "We would still have the same bloodshed, instability and destruction even if we did uncover those treasure troves of purported weapons."
Martin: "Powell now says his UN speech will forever be a blot on his reputation. And George Tenet, who was director of Central Intelligence at the time, admits in a soon-to-be-published book he let Powell down."
The online CBSNews.com version of Martin's story, sans Couric's “embarrassment” spin.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Idiot Couric
February 5, 2007 - 22:10 ET by rbosqueSilly Katie...WMD were found! And I thought your network was going to show "good news" now?
Not to the extent as was firs
February 5, 2007 - 22:39 ET by balboaNot to the extent as was first reported, though.
bal,What is that supposed to
February 5, 2007 - 22:47 ET by Blondebal,
What is that supposed to mean?
Not to the extent....?????
WMD. Anthrax. Chemical weapons. Nukes.
So I suppose chemical weapons are not sexy enough for those of you on the left?
They'll all kill you. What is your preference? Or do you prefer a simple beheading?
Grow up. They mean to kill us all.
Even the White House says tha
February 6, 2007 - 00:07 ET by balboaEven the White House says that the program is not what they believed it to be when we first went to war.
Immaterial.Saddam continued p
February 6, 2007 - 11:41 ET by BDImmaterial.
Saddam continued programs as specified in the Presidents address to Congress and the UN. I guess we only consider WMD's dangerous when they are loaded in the tubes and ready to fire rather than when secreted in the countryside?
I hope not, as that would make my job nearly impossible. It is stretching national defense to the point that common cops are required to operate today. "you are not allowed to shoot your enemy unless hyis weapon is pointed at you or another and you suspect he will pull the trigger."
By then it is too late.
Saddam's WMD's
February 5, 2007 - 22:52 ET by nkviking75Don't forget, bal, Saddam not only had WMD's, he used them. I know of at least two occasions, though I've seen higher numbers of episodes mentioned. Nobody laughed at CNN's Charles Jaco during the Gulf War when we'd get live-via-satellite reports of coalition forces running for cover because Iraqi Scud missles were incoming. That's because our side feared chemical weapons from Saddam, and with good reason. Sensible people would not assume that WMD's did not exist. Sensible people would be pressing to know where they are.
We're laughing at Jaco now.
February 5, 2007 - 23:07 ET by saw the lightWe're laughing at Jaco now. He is a reporter/opinion commentator for a local TV station here in St. Louis. He was fired as a radio commentator at KMOX and then left a conservative radio station that he did the liberal side of a morning show. He's an embarassment and a flaming libtard.
"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A.J. Liebling
J school curriculum
February 5, 2007 - 22:39 ET by nkviking75What is it with journalists? They seem incapable of coming up with story ideas unless they revolve around:
Sorry but my reaction was, &q
February 5, 2007 - 22:58 ET by kathleenirishSorry but my reaction was, "What could be more embarrassing than YOUR so-called performance as a so-called journalist every night, you freaking dope!"
As I recall, the only ones who should be really embarrassed, or more appropriately, ashamed, are the French backstabbers who lied to Colin Powell's face and snuck around undermining him (and us) afterwards. They are total cowards and shameless scumbags beholden to the genocidal dictator, Saddam.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
WMD, Iraq and the Kurds and thoughts.
February 5, 2007 - 23:21 ET by acaiguanaWMD, Iraq and the Kurds and thoughts.
Well, Saddam had some issues with WMD. The Kurds could explain it to Katie.
What we don't hear is why the intelligence was faulty. I guess the Church Committee is just too nuanced for the reader. The Iran-Contra hearings in 1984 also.
So, in order to fix the issue of United States intelligence resources being used in an 'ungentlemanly' way, the Democrats destroyed them. It didn't get any better under Clinton and Jamie Gorelic was real helpful.
But it really doesn't matter anymore. Except historically I think that is when Powell went off reservation. He felt used, I guess, and therefore became a serious liability to Bush from that point forward. I personally don't think Powell was used, but it is an underpinning of the far Left's justification for the 'Bush Lied, People Died' mantra.
In the world of intelligence, when a buncha other (allies actually) countries' intelligence agencies all report the same thing, one tends to lean toward the 'consensus'. Is there a lesson here with Global Warming.
As someone who has been the 'doubting Thomas' with respect to several government operations and the 'herd' mentality, I can say that it is very hard to buck the crowd. On the other hand, WMD were not the reason we went into Iraq.
We went to war in Iraq to put an end to Saddam Hussein's mischief in the Middle East (no one remembers Kuwait I guess); and use Iraq as an entry point to redefine the Middle East.
Now, if one wants to discuss the grand scheme of US policy in the Middle East these days, we can't seem to get past the hatred and anger toward Bush and the misrepresentation of the war and get to a discussion.
The reality is that the historic efforts to resolve the Arab/Israeli conflict (which isn't the only conflict) in the Middle East have failed. The Muslim extremists use this conflict to justify a bunch of stuff, but the Muslim extremists would have attacked the US if Israel did not exist.
The Democrats disagree with that assessment. They think that if the 'road to peace' or Camp David Accords had been pushed hard enough, there would be peace in the Middle East.
I disagree. I think Lebanon, which has really nothing at all to do with Israel either historically or politically, is the best indication of what mismanagement by the Democrats can produce. When Lebanon let the Palistinians into their country the Carter Administration ignored it. The Lebanese forget to take away their AK-47s. Civil War in Lebanon lasted from 1975-1990.
Israel had to occupy Lebanon twice during this time.
Syria was behind a lot of the problem and finally occupied Lebanon and ended the Civil War. It was at this time that the Arab extremists decided to build their jihaddist army to use terror against the West.
So, Iraq is only a key regional player in the game. But crucial to containing Iran and Syria.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Aca-Re: "the road to pea
February 6, 2007 - 03:56 ET by mastersofdeceitAca-
Re: "the road to peace". Well since there's a Republican president in office the mantra of "stalling or neglecting the road to peace" can be repeated. Of course in true Democrat fashion they disregard their own failed "RTP".
There was no bigger "yes man" to Arafat than Clinton. Even though Clinton had many failed foreign policies, including kicking open the last backdoor stronghold resistance to radical Islam in Europe, his RTP was undone by Arafat. After agreeing 100% to Arafats plan, it then went to the Israelis who also agreed with most of it but said we have a problem with this East Jerusalem thing, although we are willing to leave it on the table for future discussion. Even though the Palestinians were getting almost all they wanted in the deal they called the White House at 3 AM (not sure if it was Arafat or not) and said No deal for you!!
Too bad A Democrat can't learn from this. Peace in the Middle East I don't think so.
I've made the point that Clinton was focused on Arafat before.
February 6, 2007 - 04:08 ET by acaiguanaI've made the point that Clinton was focused on Arafat before.
But, Arafat was the wrong guy. The radicals and the Arabs outside the area of Palistinian influence as well as the Egyptians despised Arafat. They thought he was a game player with no other objective than to get rich and keep himself in the spotlight.
Our good buddy, Madam Albright wasn't well in tune with that whole scenario and I sincerely believe Jimmy Carter had something to do with the Clinton's approach to the Middle East. Now, unfortunately, it comes to light that Carter has been bought and paid for by the Arabs.
Everyone talks about how smart Bill Clinton is and how smart his wife is but they are Euro-centric in their POV; socialistic in their frames of reference (one might say 'progressive'); and they didn't understand the Middle East any more than Janet Reno understood Waco.
Pretty much everything Clinton has touched turned into a disaster. When one goes through life on style rather than substance; we get the dot com bust; we get 9/11 and we get Waco.
I don't want to come off as a complete nut here so I'll try to put it this way. I never respected Clinton's judgment because I never saw any 'foundation' for his decisions. Regardless of his 'rock star' status, between him and Carter we screwed the pooch in the Middle East.
I just read a very disturbing article about anti-semitism in the world today and the anti-Zionist movement which is picking up steam. To reduce anti-Zionism to the basic, it means Israel should not exist. And it is amazing how many Jews actually are anti-Zionist.
So, Israel is now being painted as a hotbed of oppression against the Palistinians; another apartheid government; a majority in Israel that should be a minority in the Middle East (and I suppost the world).
This wouldn't be any different than normal for Jewish people except for the insane ressuration of Mein Kampf in Europe and in Turkey and in the Arab World.
Shades of the past with a new twist.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Katie, how many days has it
February 5, 2007 - 23:27 ET by terrigKatie, how many days has it been since your embarrassment over at CBS news? Seriously, it isn't even on out here yet, not that I watch but this woman is like nails on a chalkboard.
Is that loser, Couric, still
February 6, 2007 - 01:21 ET by jdhawkIs that loser, Couric, still on the air? What a waste of broadcasting bandwidth.
It would be very refreshing
February 6, 2007 - 01:25 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt would be very refreshing to see the Left and the MSM (no difference really, just didn't want to exclude anyone of that mindset that is currently in denial) open their freakin' eyes and realize that there were OTHER additional reasons on top of the WMD George W. Bush decided to go to war:
Saddam consistently violated 17 U.N. Security Resolutions over the course of 13 years (we would've been justified taking action after he violated the 1st one).
Saddam consistently violated his own people. There have been reports of murders, rape, torture Saddam and his thugs routinely committed for a variety of reasons (or no reason at all).
He gassed the Kurds in the North (because he and many other Muslins see them as 'mongrels'), and because they were one of the biggest dissenting groups in Iraq.
He has attacked his neighbors with no provocation.
He has used chemical weapons before.
He sponsored and ran terror training camps (prime example: Salman Pak).
He pledged monetary rewards to the families of the 'martyrs' that killed innocent Israelis and Americans.
He attempted to assisinate a former President of the United States.
He routinely fired upon coalition aircraft in the Norther and Southern No-Fly Zones (I personally launched out F-16s from Turkey fully loaded with munitions to later recover them "relieved of their burdens"---after being fired upon). We only returned fire in Operations Northern and Southern Watch.
The list can go on and on...the fact is WMD was actually a small but, very scary part of the equation and hindsight is always 20/20...unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of clairvoyance.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Yeah, Mean Gene, but none of that rises to the threshold of war.
February 6, 2007 - 01:36 ET by acaiguanaYeah, Mean Gene, but none of that rises to the threshold of war.
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
There I go thinking again!I
February 6, 2007 - 01:39 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveThere I go thinking again!
If only Saddam had been stranding polar bears on chunks of ice out in the middle of the Euphrates, maybe then we would've been justified in going to war?
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
"Very Embarassing"
February 6, 2007 - 01:42 ET by JMSUIn Sec. Colin Powell's own words...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5183158/
“Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong,” the secretary told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
Colin Powells other words:&qu
February 6, 2007 - 02:08 ET by mastersofdeceitColin Powells other words:
"It hurt. Let me point out that the same intelligence I provided that’s subject to so much controversy—that’s the same intelligence that the Senate and House used four months earlier to vote for a resolution... And it was the same kind of intelligence that President Clinton used to bomb Iraq in 1998. "
" I wasn’t alone in believing those stockpiles were there—our commanders believed they were there... and our President believed it and Congress believed it. So when it turned out that part of that information was wrong, the spotlight was on me. And I’m disappointed."
" The only part that kind of annoys me is, 'Well, did you lie? Or were you misleading?' No, I didn’t lie and I wasn’t misleading. If I was lying and knew what the truth was, which has to be the basis of a lie—you know the truth—we wouldn’t have sent 1,400 people wandering around Iraq looking for the stuff. They didn’t find it. So the intelligence was wrong. And that’s all you can really say about it. "
" In Desert Storm, we didn’t extend... I got criticized for 12 years for not going to Baghdad....It was never the plan. The plan was to kick the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Guess what? We kicked the Iraqi army out of Kuwait. Clear mission, clear objective, we accomplished it, we finished it. This time around in Iraq I’m not the chairman nor am I the secretary of defense... "
"When the weapons of mass destruction argument fell apart from the standpoint of stockpiles—there's no doubt he [former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein] had the intention, he had the capability, and he'd gassed people in the past—what was missing now were the stockpiles we thought were there, and the stockpiles gave the urgency to action. When that went away, some of the American people said, "Oh, wait a minute, it wasn't that urgent. We could have perhaps used diplomacy longer."
"Because the original mission that we went in to deal with has not been finished. The conflict is not over. The conflict did not end when the Iraqi army cracked. We have taken out the government that was there—Hussein's government. Once we did that, on the ninth of April 2003, who is the government of Iraq? We are, under international law, until we turn it back over to a newly established government. "
If you need to go to the WoodShack! again let me know.
When ever these WMD discussio
February 6, 2007 - 10:04 ET by rimskyWhen ever these WMD discussions arise (gee, thanks Katie, what would we do without your perky a**) there never seems, IMO, to be enough 'equal time' given to the probability of how the WMD's were moved out of Iraq, most likely to Syria or where ever. Why is this never pursued more?
Wait! I know why the MSM doesn't pursue it. That's a given.
I want to know from ya'll, what is the consensus on the disappearance of the Iraqi WMDs? Don't tell me that there were no WMD's.. I don't buy that. Just tell me what happened to them. Links please, if you have 'em. Thanks, R
Great question, rimsky.This w
February 6, 2007 - 10:15 ET by JMSUGreat question, rimsky.
This website has done a great job of tracking the WMDs.
I ask a legitimate question a
February 6, 2007 - 13:40 ET by rimskyI ask a legitimate question and you send me to a Wikipedia link about tin-hat wearing UFO believers? 'scuse me?
Even before we bombed Iraq I
February 6, 2007 - 11:03 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveEven before we bombed Iraq I told my friends I was certain that Saddam had moved most of his WMD to Syria, and cached the rest in sundry locations around Iraq. Hell, he had 12 years to hide them. He did a great job of subverting the weapons inspectors. I have read (don't have links) articles stating that while weapons inspectors sat waiting outside certain facilities, trucks backed up on the opposite end of the building, loaded up, and drove away. If and when the inpsectors were admitted to the building, there was nothing to expect. I mean c'mon! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on.
It just like asking your kid what they are up to and they respond, "Nothing!" and you believe the kid. To do so is irresponsible. The inspectors should've had the authority to stop the vehicles and inspect them too. Inspectors should've been posted at all ports of entry in/out of Iraq as well.
Due to the inability of the inspectors to actually do their job (or maybe it was because of ineptness?), we had very inaccurate information on the WMD. However, as I stated in a post above, WMD was a small part of the laundry list of offenses Saddam committed, and the MSM and the Left refuse to understand that too.
BTW, Saddam himself was the biggest WMD.
Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)
Saddam had a long history of
February 6, 2007 - 12:04 ET by Al CzervikSaddam had a long history of hiding and obstructing. I've included a link to a US Govt white paper from 1998 that details the obstruction of UNSCOM and further characterizes the Clinton administration's stance that Iraq still had WMDs and was hiding/moving them.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/whitepap.htm
Let us not forget that Saddam has never declared that they never had WMD's. He also was never able to show that he destroyed them. All he had ever done was lie, deceive and obfuscate.
Thanks, Al.. I'll check out
February 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by rimskyThanks, Al.. I'll check out the white paper link. Good point about Saddam never declaring he didn't have WMD's. Wonder why our 'in depth' MSM has uncovered that little bit of logic.
WMDs Iraq
February 6, 2007 - 11:20 ET by pbanks7I read Gen. Georges Sada's book. He was the only guy who said no to Saddam and lived. Good book. Since he was the General in charge of the Iraqi Air Force, I believe him when he says they flew most of the WMDs to Syria. I have NEVER heard any interviews with Gen.Sada in the MSM. Heard him on Hannity, then bought his book.
Salman Pak was mentioned 1-2 times in the MSM then disregarded. 500 tons of yellowcake mentioned in NY Times News Service then disregarded by their own paper as well as the rest of the MSM.
They simply don't want to hear from anyone who could refute the Bush haters.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
Couric
February 6, 2007 - 11:36 ET by iveseenitallCouric--like having a 5th grader give a civics report every night. What a waste.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Could it be Saddam still was
February 6, 2007 - 11:36 ET by ucCould it be Saddam still was projecting he had strike capability and knew we were not likely to find his new preferred WMD - because such were our own commercial Jet liners? Al Qaeda may have acted alone and independently but likely not without Saddam Hussein as a like minded modern military thinker.
Remember Saddam Hussein thought he could keep Kuwait >> and could this be because he thought US would avoid igniting the response of radicals in the region?
By the way, isn't 'Perky' Katie a little out of depth on this to
February 6, 2007 - 11:43 ET by acaiguanaBy the way, isn't 'Perky' Katie a little out of depth on this topic?
Just thinking and adding to the adding to.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Maybe we have a much better c
February 6, 2007 - 11:45 ET by ucMaybe we have a much better chance in Middle East now that we are no longer in bed and backing up wars engaged in by a minority margin Dictator as part of Cold War global strategy. America can stand tall at least now for standing for majority based citizen represented governing. Please let us not send Hillary over there with her current inflame the economic divide articulate rhetoric>> in any official, national - not just state - role.
1st Anniversary of Couric's '
February 6, 2007 - 14:02 ET by semby1st Anniversary of Couric's 'Embarrassment' at CBS; September 5th 2007!