Lunch at the Labs

This realaudio clip (with a 2-minute lead-in) from an Ari Fleisher press conference on February 25, 2003, shows the Presidential spokesperson being literally laughed off the podium when he said in response to a journalist's question about the UN Security Council vote to sanction war against Iraq: you are saying leaders of other countries are buyable and that's not an acceptable proposition.

Amazingly this is the real thing and not a Saturday Night Live comedy sketch. How come I never saw this on Fox News which keeps boasting about being fair and balanced?

In response to William Safire's column in the February 22, 2003 New York Times I posted the following comments to his discussion board:

Mr. Safire conveniently forgot to mention the "yes-butters" on the other side, for example:

1. Yes, the phone records from the al Qaeda cell in Germany show phone calls to Saudia Arabia and Egypt and some other mid-east countries and none to Iraq, but we think Iraq has ties to the 9/11 terrorists anyway.

2. Yes, not one of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq and 14 out of 19 did come from Saudia Arabia, but we still think Iraq supports al Qaeda and Saudia Arabia does not.

3. Yes, even with all our sophisticated spy technology (on the ground and in the air) we cannot find one iota of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but we know they have them.

4. Yes, lots of countries, including the United States and Israel, have failed to obey United Resolutions, but Iraq is different and we can choose which UN resolutions we want enforced. (In fact when the UN passed a resolution for the US to stop its terrorist war against Nicaragua, we escalated the war instead.)

I wonder, does Mr. Safire not see this other side or does he purposely try to hide the other side so that his side wins the argument?

It seems clear to me that between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, bin Laden is by far the more dangerous. So George Bush, especially if he has any proof of a connection between them, should offer Saddam a deal: help us capture and/or kill bin Laden and we will leave you alone. If Saddam is as unscrupulous as he appears to be, he should have no qualms about doing anything to save his own ass. As a result, we will get the man who really does want to cause us harm and we will avoid a costly and unpopular war. If we could support Saddam in his war against Iran, why not now? And perhaps he'll piss off al Qaeda and they will kill him for us too. That's the way to do it -- get our two enemies fighting with each other.

I find Bill O'Reilly on Fox News the most entertaining of the right wing pundits who seem to be all over cable TV these days. (Where is the so-called "liberal media" these days anyway?) Not that I agree with hardly anything he opines, but at least for the most part he does it with some humor, even if not always on purpose.

I wonder if Fox News really believes its slogan about being fair and balanced and whether Mr. Oreilly really thinks he does not spin the news. Here are just a few recent items of interest that I've never heard mentioned on the The O'Reilly Factor (or Fox News for that matter):

• According to a CNN online poll 82 percent of Americans think going to war with Iraq will provoke another attack on the U.S., as opposed to 13 percent who think it will prevent one. (The only polls mentioned on Fox News are those showing how much Americans support Bush's war against Iraq, and even then they omit that the support is only there because people want to show the world that this country is behind its President.)
• When examining telephone calls from Al Qaeda in Germany before 9/11, there were lots of calls to Saudia Arabia and Egypt and some other mid-east countries but none to Iraq. (So why is Iraq accused of aiding the 9/11 terrorists and not Saudia Arabia for example.)
• During Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations last week, the CIA's George Tenet sat behind him. Supposedly his presence was significant because previously the CIA had said there was no evidence to link Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attack. Some astute observers have noted that Tenet looked straight ahead throughout the speech except when Powell talked about the Iraqi terrorist connection and then he looked down.
• The Iraqis are not the only ones in flagrant violation of UN resolutions. For example, UN Resolution 242 from 1967 requires Israel to withdraw from the Arab territories it occupied that year. And several years ago after the Security Council endorsed the World Court condemnation of the United States and order to terminate the terrorist war against Nicaragua, the United States vetoed it and the Congress voted to escalate the war.

I don't see anything terribly wrong with only presenting the facts that support your opinion, but it does bother me when a news organization does this and claims to be unbiased. The question I have is are they doing this with forethought or are they like orthodox religious people who cannot distinguish reality from their faith and unconsciously block any opposing thoughts from entering the minds?

The editors of The New Republic wrote a dumb editorial entitled Time Out for the issue dated 02.10.03, where they opine the fact that the "liberals" keep moving the bar on the conditions for going to war with Iraq.

But I see the situation exactly the opposite. Paraphrasing from their first paragraph, originally President Bush said we were going to war with Iraq because of their links to Al Qaeda. Then when there was no evidence for that, he said we were going to war with Iraq because they had nuclear weapons. Then when there was no evidence for that he said we were going to war with Iraq because they had had chemical and biological weapons. Then when there was no evidence for that ... .

I find it amazing how this administration has used 9/11 to manipulate public opinion and has bamboozled most of the non-right media and the Democrats to believe its agenda (or at least not oppose it). What a bunch of wimps.

There's already talk about how Colin Powell's presentation of "evidence" to the U.N. will not be definitive, in an attempt to make it appear that there is some evidence. It's kind of like what Wall Street does these days with corporate earnings; lower expectations so you can report that you beat them and your stock will go up. And yes, I know Saddam is a bad guy. But according to Amnesty International there are a dozen or so others out there who are worse. Deterrence worked against the Russians (who were at least as "evil") for 50 years; why not now? IMO, this is about oil and Israel. Someone should ask Bush if he would be willing to promise that the US, including any US citizen or business, will not make any money from Iraqi oil as a result of our invasion. I'd bet he won't accept.