News From the Front - In the Media's Eyes

[confidential0216]

Why is it that everything you hear about Iraq is always negative? Whenever I watch or read the news I always see something like "3 US soldiers killed" or "fighting erupts on the streets of Baghdad". Now, war is a terrible thing, but it seems like the media presents the war in a very negative way. Why isn't there ever any news about the progress we are making?

Lets go back to the Vietnam War, or "conflict", "issue", whatever you want to call it. Public outcry against the war was incredibly strong. People believed we should never have gotten involved over there and that men's lives were being wasted. Sounds a lot like today, doesn't it? Well, take into consideration what Americans were being fed by the media. Vietnam was the first time reporters were present for battles or their aftermath. Before this, the people back home got a few snapshots taken by war photographers, but not a lot. In Vietnam, live footage of the war was being brought into the average American home every day. The media loved to focus on the piles of dead bodies and the destroyed landscapes about them. War had always been this savage and bloody, but it was the first time the American people were, in a sense, there to witness it.

Alright, back to modern times. I don't completely agree with the war, nor have I agreed with all the decisions made in the past concerning the war, but I think it's time the media stopped poisoning the minds of the American people with it's negative outlook on the war.

People need to understand this: we are there now, there can be no turning back. There can be only victory for the United States of America. For all of you who think we have already lost, or that there is no end in sight, I can only say that your lack of faith and support of our soldiers is a disgrace.

[mongrel]

The very presence of coalition troops in Iraq demands criticism.

It is an illegal invasion. I do not support war criminals, sorry.

[confidential0216]

You don't support the people over there fighting for you? That is a sad thing. Are you from the US? I don't think I have ever met anybody who does not support the troops. Well, there is a first for everything and I think that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you don't support the war, that is fine, but if you can't show some respect for our boys over there who actually have the balls to join the military, you're pathetic. How, though, was it an illegal invasion? How can an invasion be illegal? I still do not understand that argument.

[Dunecat]

OH ALRIGHT, on topic:

Mongrel is British, not American, and you, good sar, are in error.

There, I have fulfilled my obligation and am safe from hammers...

[mrmouth]

I suggest everyone who feels the way Mongrel does, read the book Curveball. Read how numerous intelligence agencies, starting with the BND (German intelligence service), the Brits, the Jordanians and the CIA, were all fooled by one Iraqi dissident. A dissident who in the end, embellished his stories of having worked for Saddams covert biological weapons program, which did exist, but not at the level this man claimed.

He was thought of as a treasure trove of intel by all involved.

In the end the embellishment, was a direct result of the German attitude towards Iraqi dissidents. Germany is the immigration capital of Europe, especially with Muslims. Of those Muslims, a huge amount are Iraqi. Because of Germany's past, they are more likely to grant refugee status to Iraqis, who they felt were oppressed, and everyone in the Muslim world wishing to immigrate knows that. So many, claim to be Iraqi, but are quickly found out.

Furthermore, if Iraqis can provide the BND solid intel about Iraq, they are given a house, a job, and a car, when other Muslims must remain in the system, often for years.

The system is far from accommodating. For around the first year, you spend your days in a converted prison in Nuremberg, under lock and key. There is no Mosque, and the very few personal items you are given are donated to the system by generous Germans. Inmates are divided up along ethnic lines, and even by whether they eat pork or not. Violence is common, so Russians are divided from Africans, Serbs from Albanians, Iraqis from Iranians, etc, etc.

If your lucky, after a year you'll be moved to a halfway house of sorts, that some say are worse than the 'prison'.

So in the end, this war was sold by one man, who in his desperation to fulfill his dream of becoming a well paid chemical engineer, embellished his life story to win his meal ticket. He remains under the protection of the BND to this day. Around 9 years from the day he talked for the first time.

For what its worth though, what he did divulge to the BND was for the most part accurate, just to a degree that apparently didn't exist. In the prologue you will learn that the mobile trucks Colin Powell spoke about at the UN, and provided detailed diagrams of, actually did exist, and two were found in Northwest Iraq near the Syrian border in the early weeks of the war.

This would contribute to the belief that Iraq did reach an agreement with Syria to move WMD's into their country. Satellite photos showing convoy after convoy of trucks heading into Syria just weeks before the war, would also suggest that it was a likely scenario. Not to mention the purchase of a very large amount of antidote for nerve agent and mustard gas by Iraq around the same time.

If you want to learn more, read the book. Or continue to form you own opinions based on whatever, your choice.

[BoJaN]

I suggest everyone who feels the way Mongrel does, read the book Curveball. Read how numerous intelligence agencies, starting with the BND (German intelligence service), the Brits, the Jordanians and the CIA, were all fooled by one Iraqi dissident. A dissident who in the end, embellished his stories of having worked for Saddams covert biological weapons program, which did exist, but not at the level this man claimed.

He was thought of as a treasure trove of intel by all involved.

In the end the embellishment, was a direct result of the German attitude towards Iraqi dissidents. Germany is the immigration capital of Europe, especially with Muslims. Of those Muslims, a huge amount are Iraqi. Because of Germany's past, they are more likely to grant refugee status to Iraqis, who they felt were oppressed, and everyone in the Muslim world wishing to immigrate knows that. So many, claim to be Iraqi, but are quickly found out.

Furthermore, if Iraqis can provide the BND solid intel about Iraq, they are given a house, a job, and a car, when other Muslims must remain in the system, often for years.

The system is far from accommodating. For around the first year, you spend your days in a converted prison in Nuremberg, under lock and key. There is no Mosque, and the very few personal items you are given are donated to the system by generous Germans. Inmates are divided up along ethnic lines, and even by whether they eat pork or not. Violence is common, so Russians are divided from Africans, Serbs from Albanians, Iraqis from Iranians, etc, etc.

If your lucky, after a year you'll be moved to a halfway house of sorts, that some say are worse than the 'prison'.

So in the end, this war was sold by one man, who in his desperation to fulfill his dream of becoming a well paid chemical engineer, embellished his life story to win his meal ticket. He remains under the protection of the BND to this day. Around 9 years from the day he talked for the first time.

For what its worth though, what he did divulge to the BND was for the most part accurate, just to a degree that apparently didn't exist. In the prologue you will learn that the mobile trucks Colin Powell spoke about at the UN, and provided detailed diagrams of, actually did exist, and two were found in Northwest Iraq near the Syrian border in the early weeks of the war.

This would contribute to the belief that Iraq did reach an agreement with Syria to move WMD's into their country. Satellite photos showing convoy after convoy of trucks heading into Syria just weeks before the war, would also suggest that it was a likely scenario. Not to mention the purchase of a very large amount of antidote for nerve agent and mustard gas by Iraq around the same time.

If you want to learn more, read the book. Or continue to form you own opinions based on whatever, your choice.

So in the end, this war was sold by one man, who in his desperation to fulfill his dream of becoming a well paid chemical engineer, embellished his life story to win his meal ticket.

So the worlds most advanced intelligent agency was fooled by one man. Sounds like the plot to a cheesy action movie. (the guy would have a scare on his left eye of course)

Its pretty risky making one man the scape goats, as to the cause of the Iraq war. You think it will work??!

[Mangalore]

I suggest everyone who feels the way Mongrel does, read the book Curveball. Read how numerous intelligence agencies, starting with the BND (German intelligence service), the Brits, the Jordanians and the CIA, were all fooled by one Iraqi dissident. A dissident who in the end, embellished his stories of having worked for Saddams covert biological weapons program, which did exist, but not at the level this man claimed.
...

The version of the German intelligence service was:
"We have this guy with a story about mobile bio weapon labs. Can any of you confirm/support it?" Next thing they knew was that their powerpoint presentation was shown in the UN security council as absolute proof of bio weapon labs.

Sure there were misunderstandings as both secret services were under diverging political pressure but it's still weird how the German secret service trying to confirm a story turns into them being fooled by it. If so, why did they desparately try to get secondary sources ?

[mongrel]

The version of the German intelligence service was:
"We have this guy with a story about mobile bio weapon labs. Can any of you confirm/support it?" Next thing they knew was that their powerpoint presentation was shown in the UN security council as absolute proof of bio weapon labs.

Sure there were misunderstandings as both secret services were under diverging political pressure but it's still weird how the German secret service trying to confirm a story turns into them being fooled by it. If so, why did they desparately try to get secondary sources ?

And if you examine the UN presentation ( see relevant post in "In Iraq for Oil")

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...39#post2877539

you will see that it does not require much intelligence, either military, or the more conventional kind, to see that the US case was essentially flawed. This is why I do not buy the lets not criticise the government, let's support our troops line. It just gets these criminals and incompetents off the hook, whilst good people die for no purpose.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

You don't support the people over there fighting for you?

Fighting for who?

How, though, was it an illegal invasion? How can an invasion be illegal? I still do not understand that argument.

It's called "international law". Remember when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990 and Dubya's daddy led a coalition of nations to kick him out? Guess what legal basis that coalition had. And when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the US condemned them? Guess what legal basis that condemnation had.

That's why the US and UK had to produce spurious justifications of their invasion based on weird interpretations of UN Security Council Resolutions agreed in 1991 - Resolutions that explicitly state that violation of those Resolutions required Security Council agreement on any military action: something the US and UK never got and decided to simply ignore in 2003.

The 2003 invasion was as illegal under international law as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But it seems the US can simply ride roughshod over laws it once claimed to uphold.

The media should have absolutely no involvement in wars.

FFS - are you trying to win some kind of award for "Extreme Clueless Naivety" here? The idea of giving any government free rein in a war without any media oversight of what it does is totally ridiculous. The idea of giving Bush and Cheney that level of free rein is absolutely insane.

And heeeeeeeeeeere'e Barnaby ...

I suggest everyone who feels the way Mongrel does, read the book Curveball.

The one by Bob Drogin? Here's Drogin on Bush and the Iraq War:

Drogin: So, to be clear: I believe George Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents in our history. He took the nation into an unnecessary war that is now a tragedy of epic proportions. He alone is responsible for that decision.

Doesn't sound as though Drogin and Mongrel have much to disagree about.

Read how numerous intelligence agencies, starting with the BND (German intelligence service), the Brits, the Jordanians and the CIA, were all fooled by one Iraqi dissident .... He was thought of as a treasure trove of intel by all involved.

Garbage. He was widely considered a drunk, a clown and an unreliable source and this was reported by his German handlers to the CIA and reported up the chain at the CIA to Tenet. But Tenet - kowtowing to Cheney and bowing to what Bush wanted to believe - treated anyone who was sceptical about sources that were sayign what the White House wanted to believe (in Drogin's words) "as heretics".

But the idea that Curveball was universally believed to be "a treasure trove" is complete nonsense.

[T]he president's intelligence commission, chaired by former appellate judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), disclosed that senior intelligence officials had serious questions about "Curveball," the code name for an Iraqi informant who provided the key information on Hussein's alleged mobile biological facilities.

The CIA clandestine service's European division chief had met in 2002 with a German intelligence officer whose service was handling Curveball. The German said his service "was not sure whether Curveball was actually telling the truth," according to the commission report. When it appeared that Curveball's material would be in Bush's State of the Union speech, the CIA Berlin station chief was asked to get the Germans to allow him to question Curveball directly.

On the day before the president's speech, the Berlin station chief warned about using Curveball's information on the mobile biological units in Bush's speech. The station chief warned that the German intelligence service considered Curveball "problematical" and said its officers had been unable to confirm his assertions. The station chief recommended that CIA headquarters give "serious consideration" before using that unverified information, according to the commission report.

The next day, Bush told the world: "We know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile weapons labs . . . designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors."
("Prewar Findings Worried Analysts")

"Everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening," said Drumheller, who retired in November after 25 years at the CIA. He said he never met personally with Tenet, but "did talk to McLaughlin and everybody else."

Drumheller scoffed at claims by Tenet and McLauglin that they were unaware of concerns about Curveball's credibility. He said he was disappointed that the two former CIA leaders would resort to a "bureaucratic defense" that they never got a formal memo expressing doubts about the defector.

"They can say whatever they want," Drumheller said. "They know what the truth is …. I did not lie." Drumheller said the CIA had "lots of documentation" to show suspicions about Curveball were disseminated widely within the agency. He said they included warnings to McLaughlin's office and to the Weapons Intelligence Non Proliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC, the group responsible for many of the flawed prewar assessments on Iraq.

"Believe me, there are literally inches and inches of documentation" including "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos and things like that detailing meetings" where officials sharply questioned Curveball's credibility, Drumheller said.
("Curveball Debacle Reignites CIA Fued")

What Drogin details is how the hawks in the White House and the Pentagon leaned on the CIA and politicised the intelligence analysis process, and how Tenet spinelessly went along with this process of willful distortion to convince the public that there was "no doubt" that Saddam posed an immediate threat that inspections and containment could not handle and only invasion and war could deal with.

This illegal war was sold on the back of lies and distortions that were known to be lies and distortions and all the fantasy and revisionism in the world won't change that fact.

[mrmouth]

Doesn't sound as though Drogin and Mongrel have much to disagree about.

Probably not, the author doesn't hide his feelings about the war. I never thought that Iraq was a smart move regardless of WMD's for that matter. The author simply wrote about how one single man sparked a war. Thats the gist of the book, and thats what my post was about, the book, which I have read.

If your going to attack everything I have to say on some demented basis from now on so be it, but your real grievances lie with the author apparently. The guy wrote a well researched book, and he outlines his research in the prologue. Who the people are he met with, and what their jobs entail/ed. It contradicts all of the quotes you chose to use.

Your best course of action would be to read the book. You've already dismissed the idea that he is somehow a warmonger, so pick it up.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The author simply wrote about how one single man sparked a war. Thats the gist of the book, and thats what my post was about, the book, which I have read.

Since Drogin is clearly informed enough to be aware that there were several other sources of "information" that were used to whip up hysteria for the War and that Bush and Co knew were either dubious or plain false (aluminium tubes, Nigerian yellowcake etc), he is not actually saying that Curveball was the sole cause of the war. Curveball certainly provided some of the more hysterical elements of the Bush Administration's scheme to dupe the public into thinking that war was the only answer, but he was not the sole cause of the War by any means.

If your going to attack everything I have to say on some demented basis ...

I'll correct your errors, since you seem incapable of checking your facts, posting without repeating what you'd like to be true while ignoring contrary evidence and posting without oversimplifiying to the point of distortion. And I'll do it on the basis of facts and evidence, not dementia.

You said Curveball "was thought of as a treasure trove of intel by all involved". That's total garbage. Your picture of how "the BND .... the Brits, the Jordanians and the CIA, were all fooled" is clearly wrong and a wild distortion of what actually happened. Many people recognised Curveball as a liar and as an unreliable source of information. But Tenet wanted to give his political masters what they we're demanding - a casus belli for a war they had already decided to fight years earlier - so the naysayers were ignored.

The only people fooled was the portion of the American public that actually swallowed all the bilge about WMDs and supported Bush's illegal war.

[mrmouth]

I'll correct your errors, since you seem incapable of checking your facts,

The facts came from a book, in which the author interviewed the very people from numerous intelligence agencies, not least of which, the people in the BND who interviewed curveball.

Buy the book, read the book, write the author.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

The 2003 invasion was as illegal under international law as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. But it seems the US can simply ride roughshod over laws it once claimed to uphold.

Your not actually comparing An Agressive action (And not the first one) carried out by a known ruthless dictator to a war which for whatever reasons occured would of ended up with a democratic Iraq if all things went according to plan ?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Your not actually comparing An Agressive action (And not the first one) carried out by a known ruthless dictator to a war which for whatever reasons occured would of ended up with a democratic Iraq if all things went according to plan ?

Yes. Both were illegal actions under international law. International law doesn't take the kind intentions of the invaders into account. Many aggressors have what they say are noble intentions when they invade someone else - can you think of a headline where the invader's media declares "It's WAR - Because we're evil and greedy!!!"? Some nations may even believe some of those noble intentions.

The fact remains that national sovereignty is enshrined in international law because history tells us aggressor nations are very good at (i) coming up with plausible noble intentions and (ii) even coming to believe in them.

Noble intentions are a dime a dozen and are therefore not considered by international law. National sovereignty is.

And the US used to at least pretend to uphold that principle.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Yes. Both were illegal actions under international law. International law doesn't take the kind intentions of the invaders into account. Many aggressors have what they say are noble intentions when they invade someone else - can you think of a headline where the invader's media declares "It's WAR - Because we're evil and greedy!!!"? Some nations may even believe some of those noble intentions.

The fact remains that national sovereignty is enshrined in international law because history tells us aggressor nations are very good at (i) coming up with plausible noble intentions and (ii) even coming to believe in them.

Noble intentions are a dime a dozen and are therefore not considered by international law. National sovereignty is.

In other words, you would put the Invasion of Kuwait, and Operation of Iraqi
freedom (And i have no illusions on how dubious that title is and has become) on the same footing due to a mere legal technicality ?

Right-o.....

[confidential0216]

In error about what exactly? Supporting my country's troops? You know, England has some guys over there too. I just don't get how you could not support your country's men and women in the military.

[Dunecat]

In error about what exactly? Supporting my country's troops? You know, England has some guys over there too. I just don't get how you could not support your country's men and women in the military.

List the names of men and women you know that wish to extend their tours in Iraq with confidence. NAME THEM.

LIST the fething NAMES.

I know more servicemen personally then are in your family. If by "support the troops" you mean leave them in the ME doing the work of police without enough people on the ground then NO, I do not.

I'd like to meet all these hardliners you know. Fact is you've been spoonfed this by the washington brass and politicians who never talk to the enlisted, let alone the lieutenants and captains.

It's laughable. Of course, no one's around to hear it because they are in rehab (for all intents and purposes). All I've got left are the "patriots" who get drunk off the smell of blood.

McCain: I talk to the men and women. They say, "Let us finish the job".

BULL. CRAP.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

List the names of men and women you know that wish to extend their tours in Iraq with confidence. NAME THEM.

LIST the fething NAMES.

I know more servicemen personally then are in your family. If by "support the troops" you mean leave them in the ME doing the work of police without enough people on the ground then NO, I do not.

I'd like to meet all these hardliners you know. Fact is you've been spoonfed this by the washington brass and politicians who never talk to the enlisted, let alone the lieutenants and captains.

It's laughable. Of course, no one's around to hear it because they are in rehab (for all intents and purposes). All I've got left are the "patriots" who get drunk off the smell of blood.

McCain: I talk to the men and women. They say, "Let us finish the job".

BULL. CRAP.

While I haven't yet served one term in Iraq, I do want to go. If my unit deploys and I am not required to go with them, I will volunteer to go with them. I'm going to BCT (Basic Combat Training) on the 14th, and s.rwitt is going for BCT (I believe) on the 19th.

Besides, I do know people that have gone over to Iraq and extended their tours of duties.

[Thanatos]

Because anytime you show the graphic violence of the war to the armchair civilian back home, it's always going to be negative.

Every war since Vietnam has been this way, thanks to the media.

[confidential0216]

That is my point. The media should have absolutely no involvement in wars. In my opinion, the reason we "lost" in Vietnam, even though we never lost a single battle, was because the media screwed everything up. That along with micromanagement from the White House.