CNN’s Cafferty Draws Moral Equivalence Between Iran and United States

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
By Scott Whitlock (Bio | Archive)
February 12, 2007 - 18:50 ET

During the Monday edition of the "Situation Room," Jack Cafferty discussed U.S. allegations that Iraqi militants are killing American soldiers with weapons provided by Iran. At the conclusion of the "Cafferty File" segment, the CNN host engaged in the always reliable media tradition of moral equivalence, comparing Iran’s action to U.S. support of Afghan rebels in the 1980s. Apparently, the fact that America was opposing the brutal Russian regime, whereas, in this case, Iran is the oppressive entity, makes no difference. Cafferty and "Situation Room" host Wolf Blitzer also exhibited skepticism about the United State’s timing in making these accusations:

Jack Cafferty: "So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

A transcript of the February 12 segment, which aired at 4:08pm, follows:

Jack Cafferty: "A war of words, Wolf, heating up between the United States and Iran. U.S. officials yesterday showing off what they call a growing body of evidence that Iranian weapons are being used to kill coalition soldiers in Iraq. They say that Iran is making the violence worse there by providing Shiite groups with technology, money, and training. The officials are focused on something called EFPs or explosively formed penetrators that can punch through heavily armored vehicles. The U.S. says these weapons can be traced back to Iran and have killed 170 coalition forces. An Iranian official calls the U.S. allegations all lies saying the administration has made mistakes in Iraq and they want to use Iran as a scapegoat. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denied that his country is supplying weapons to Iraqi militants. He said there will only be peace in Iraq when foreign forces leave there. So here is the question: ‘When it comes to Iran’s alleged involvement in Iraq, who do you believe?’ E-mail your thoughts to Caffertyfile@CNN.com or go to CNN.com/Caffertyfile. Reminiscent, Wolf, of the war in Afghanistan, when Russia invaded. It seems to me we were– The United States was supplying weapons and intelligence and things like that to the Afghan rebels."

Wolf Blitzer: "The Mujahideen, a lot. Through the CIA, through the Saudis, Those shoulder-fired missiles which brought down a lot of Soviet helicopters."

Cafferty: "So, that was okay but it's not okay if Iran-- I'm, I’m confused, Wolf."

Wolf Blitzer: "Well, you know, later we will talk to Michael Ware about the timing, why the U.S. is releasing all this information right now since it's been out there at least for a year, maybe two."

Cafferty: "And Iran, arguably, is probably not the only country with vested interest in what’s going on going inside Iraq. All of the nations around in immediate area, including Saudi Arabia, have a very vested interest in the outcome of what is happening in that country."

Blitzer: "A lot of people do. All right, Jack. Thanks very much."

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This somehow seems relevant:

February 12, 2007 - 19:21 ET by uc

This somehow seems relevant:  Bush has increased spending for our National Parks by 40% since taking office and has proposed a $250 million increase for 2007 as over 2006.  

40% you say....But if Clinton

February 12, 2007 - 22:45 ET by Conservative in the Arts

40% you say....But if Clinton was still in the White House he would have increased it by 60%. So tomorrow on the news you're going to hear them say how Bush cut funding by 20%!

If Cafferty is "confused

February 12, 2007 - 19:33 ET by Chris Norman

If Cafferty is "confused" about a black and white moral question like this, then it's time for him to stop even trying to think. Note to Mr. Cafferty, we prosecute spies for espionage against this country, even though we have our own spies. We try to defeat the enemy soldier even though we have our own soldiers. You are truly an old fool.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

- Arabian Proverb

Again, this is actully great.

February 12, 2007 - 19:39 ET by Edhenry

Again, this is actully great. If the public really listens: America=Iran? Whose side are you on?

Got the sense Wolf was bum rushing Cafferty as he was spewing his nonsense.  

Let's see Mr Cafferty. Who do

February 12, 2007 - 19:38 ET by danbo

Let's see Mr Cafferty. Who do I believe?

By EASON JORDAN

TLANTA — Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard — awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff.

For example, in the mid-1990's one of our Iraqi cameramen was abducted. For weeks he was beaten and subjected to electroshock torture in the basement of a secret police headquarters because he refused to confirm the government's ludicrous suspicion that I was the Central Intelligence Agency's Iraq station chief. CNN had been in Baghdad long enough to know that telling the world about the torture of one of its employees would almost certainly have gotten him killed and put his family and co-workers at grave risk...

 I knew that CNN could not report that Saddam Hussein's eldest son, Uday, told me in 1995 that he intended to assassinate two of his brothers-in-law who had defected and also the man giving them asylum, King Hussein of Jordan. If we had gone with the story, I was sure he would have responded by killing the Iraqi translator who was the only other participant in the meeting... A few months later Uday lured the brothers-in-law back to Baghdad; they were soon killed.

I came to know several Iraqi officials well enough that they confided in me that Saddam Hussein was a maniac who had to be removed. One Foreign Ministry officer told me of a colleague who, finding out his brother had been executed by the regime, was forced, as a test of loyalty, to write a letter of congratulations on the act to Saddam Hussein. An aide to Uday once told me why he had no front teeth: henchmen had ripped them out with pliers and told him never to wear dentures, so he would always remember the price to be paid for upsetting his boss. Again, we could not broadcast anything these men said to us.

Last December, when I told Information Minister Muhammad Said al-Sahhaf that we intended to send reporters to Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, he warned me they would "suffer the severest possible consequences." CNN went ahead, and in March, Kurdish officials presented us with evidence that they had thwarted an armed attack on our quarters in Erbil. This included videotaped confessions of two men identifying themselves as Iraqi intelligence agents who said their bosses in Baghdad told them the hotel actually housed C.I.A. and Israeli agents. The Kurds offered to let us interview the suspects on camera, but we refused, for fear of endangering our staff in Baghdad.

Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely.

Eason Jordan is chief news executive at CNN.

I know whose word i don't trust Mr Cafferty

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

danbo

February 12, 2007 - 20:05 ET by Gary Hall

danbo - "I feel awful having this story bottled up inside me." About a day after Jordan's column was published, I contacted him. I suggested that CNN produce a full length special documentary on all of that information that they had kept from the world - and their viewers - for so long. "Now was the time," I argued. Jordan's response -"oh, these stories are going to be pouring out. You'll see."

So much so, that the LA Times (for this work of "what they wanted to hear journalism," at least I got a correction printed) in Feb 2005, printed a story regarding Eason Jordan's disgraced exit from CNN, in which they looked back at his story with this re-written piece (fictional) of that personal history:

"While at CNN, Jordan also had provoked many activists and critics in an April 2003 opinion piece in the New York Times. Jordan asserted that he sometimes could not allow his network to report all it had learned during the intense early days of combat in Iraq, for fear that releasing certain confidential information would put lives in jeopardy."

Needless to say, that was not was Jordan was saying, even then. This is our "news of record." The way it works. One piece of trash results in even more trash.

Gary You've confused me. Are

February 12, 2007 - 20:27 ET by danbo

Gary You've confused me. Are you saying Jordan was lying when he wrote this? Or trying to cover their sins of omissions?

Was this personnal information or do you have a source?

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”   H.L. Mencken

danbo.. read again

February 12, 2007 - 23:44 ET by Gary Hall

danbo.... read again.  No, I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm sure that Jordan absolutely told the truth - on that occasion. And, I'm pleased that you posted his column again. Now try it again. (;~>

He wrote the column. In it he confessed to what he and CNN's reporters knew - that which they had not made public - the implication was that it was quite a lot. He suggested that now since Saddam's regime was over with - the stories could be told. I suggested to him (was it personal info. -yea that was indeed) - I'm sure we all agree - "have at it." Tell the stories. Quickly tell the stories. He did not. Rather, he turned trenchcoat, and made up stories about the US military.

My bit about the LA Times piece was additional information. The LA Times writer - completely misrepresented what Jordan said in his column (this was later on). He wrote that Jordan's piece was set in a time period after the US invasion - not prior. Hence, my analysis of how the media looks to find what they want to find.

Hope that helps - read it again.

This is called moral equivale

February 12, 2007 - 19:39 ET by SMGalbraith

As you correctly note, this is moral equivalence in action. The inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish, in this case, between a country that intervenes into another country to establish a dictatorship and another country that intervenes to overthrow a dictatorship.

I guess Mr. Cafferty believes there was no difference between the Germans invading France in 1939 to remove their government  and the US invading France in 1942 to remove the Vichy government?

And to think we have to explain this to an adult in the year 2006.

Battle cry for the left - Reagan armed Bin Laden!

February 12, 2007 - 19:47 ET by Gary Hall

Scott. (great post)   I imagine that Cafferty knows the history here. However, one of the battle cry (whines) for the left these past few years has been - "It was Pres. Reagan who supplied arms to the Mujahideen, and thus armed Bin Laden! - It's always their fault." Without mentioning Reagan - most folks watching. will for some reason make the sour connection here to Reagan. But why? And why is not Carter's name mentioned, by Cafferty? Does silence automatically steer the viewer to the usual suspects?

Let me interrupt. One would always expect - and always be disappointed - to find out that the left, the so-called anti-imperialists and human rights supporters - just never seem to be there opposing the world's most aggressive imperialists and human rights violators when they are on the march.

President Reagan always seems to get the blame - but wait, it should be that he gets the credit - for continuing, in fact, increasing the aid to the Mujahideen, in their fight to oppose the aggressor USSR imperialists. The aid that President Jimmy Carter began, earlier in 1979.

For the record (and by the way - the day we hear one of our leftists MSM journalists ask JC about this, is indeed the day GW has engulfed NY City):

Zbigniew Brzezinski:
How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahideen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980 [note: Reagan took office in 1981], that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Oh, gee whiz. One has to wonder if that secret covert action of supplying arms was "illegal."

P.S. Michael Ware - oh, he is the man. Ware knows about the timing, and Ware knows the information about the Iranian supplied shoulder fired missiles - he's known about it for the last two years - and hasn't reported about until now?

I see, so really, in liberal dogma, Jimmy Carter created UBL

February 13, 2007 - 01:39 ET by SportPolitics

I see, so really, in liberal dogma, Jimmy Carter created Usama Bin Laden. No wonder the libs are so upset, and think UBL is a friend, not an enemy. Maybe Jimmah's Ramsey C. will leap to UBL's defense soon.

I get it now, it's all about what the libs really did. Good going there libidiots.

"Relat

February 12, 2007 - 19:49 ET by JPniner

"Relativism will certainly damn our souls and end our species." - C.S. Lewis

notice he says supporting afg

February 12, 2007 - 20:21 ET by buddyc

notice he says supporting afghan rebels in the 80's.  in reality that aid began in the 70's under carter but he had to protect his handlers.  that should give you tip on where anyone that works at cnn is coming from.  our support of the insurgancy in afghanistan that led to ubl and al qaeda began in 1976.  who was president in 1976?  CARTER!  flounder/cafferty is not only an ignorant fool.  he is a hack.

And down goes CNN

February 12, 2007 - 21:03 ET by d1carter

Is there any question that CNN has gone to the dark side? The ratings show that these guys are out of touch with the American people. Military families and most sane Americans are not confused about this at all.

Pay no attention to that dr

February 12, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Mivvis

Pay no attention to that drunk behind the wheel.

Cafferty

February 13, 2007 - 01:17 ET by iveseenitall

Cafferty lost his moral compass long ago. He, Diane Sawyer, and Wolf Blitzer are part of a long line of "journalists" whose liberal credentials are impeccable. They are illogical, dishonest, disloyal relativists who couldn't care less about anything or anyone but themselves and putrid political agenda. They are sickening.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

It is pathological to sympath

February 13, 2007 - 08:49 ET by gideonmjames

It is pathological to sympathize with and justify the mindset of terrorists. But that is what liberals and Democrats do across the board. They would rather empathize with terrorists than stand for their own country. THAT is treasonous.

Democrat traitors! Has a ri

February 13, 2007 - 09:57 ET by liberal_bug_zapper

Democrat traitors! Has a ring of truth to it.

To the Democratic party, this kind of treason we are seeing today is not new. In fact, it is a historical fact that the Democrats are generally known as a bunch of spineless weasels. Traitors to their nation and instruments of this nation's defeat.....thankfully, they have not succeeded in their treasonous ways.

"These Democrats demanded immediate peace and resisted the draft laws. They wanted the President and the Republicans ousted from power, seeing the president as a tyrant who was destroying American republican values with his despotic and arbitrary actions."

Sound familiar? Well, that's because it's exactly what they democrats are saying now......However, in a very odd twist of fate, logic, call it what you will, this statement isn't taken from Democrats today, no, this was written more than 100 years ago. This is what Democrats said about Lincoln durring the Civil War. These Democrats were known as the "Copperheads". They were also called "Peace Democrats" and "Butternuts".

If the traitorous Democrats had succeeded early on, we might still have slavery or it most certainly would have lasted far longer than it did. In fact, it was during the American Civil War that the traitorous Democrats came of age.

They were against the war and demanded an immediate cease fire. Just like they're demanding now. They demanded we immediately stop all fighting. Just like they're demanding now, and they helped the enemy in courts and by leaking important information out of the government. Just like they are doing now.

How did Lincoln deal with these Traitorous Democrats? He suspended Habeas corpus and caught, jailed or expelled all those traitors who were damaging the war effort.

Bush has not gone so far as to suspend Habeas corpus for US Citizens, and the way we are fighting this war is far less brutal than any other past war.

And again, amazingly so, it is the Republicans, the Party of Abraham Lincoln, which protects us now, and the Democrats who are again endangering our very lives and safety with their shortsighted caterwauling for us to stop fighting this war.

If we fought this war with the full support of the people, we probably wouldn't have to suspend Habeas corpus, however I fear, that the Democrats and their allies in the Liberal left are going to force us to take these actions if we wish to forgo a protracted war. And what's worse, their mouthpieces in the Leftist media will be the catalysts for an even greater war due to their denial of who our enemy really is.

LBZ

____________________________________________________

"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine