Michael Moore & Colin Powell: Creative Editors

Here's an account of how of Colin Powell performed the same sort of deceptive editing on source material in his report to the UN Security Council in Feb. 2003 that Michael Moore did on speech and interview footage in Bowling for Columbine. but at least moore's deceptions were limited to surreptitious cuts and pastes, not making things up!

(Quote from article by gilbert cranberg in the washington post.)

The troubling manner in which Powell embroidered one of the two intercepted conversations raises the question of whether similar spin figured in his interpretation of the photos.

Here is the relevant portion of the State Department's translation of a Jan. 30 conversation between Iraqi Republican Guard headquarters and an officer in the field:

Headquarters: They are inspecting the ammunition you have -- Field: Yes . . .
HQ: -- for the possibility there is, by chance, forbidden ammo.
Field: Yes.
HQ: And we sent you a message to inspect the scrap areas and the abandoned areas. Field: Yes.
HQ: After you have carried out what is contained in the message, destroy the message.
Field: Yes.
HQ: Because I don't want anyone to see this message.
Field: O.K., O.K.

In recounting this exchange, Powell changed it significantly. In Powell's version, the order from headquarters to "inspect" for ammunition became an order to "clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas." Powell also claimed that headquarters told the field officer, "Make sure there is nothing there." This instruction appears nowhere in the transcript.

When I asked the State Department's press and public affairs offices to explain the discrepancy between its transcript and Powell's retelling, they referred me to the department's Web site. The material there simply confirmed that Powell had misrepresented the intercept.

In my earlier post i wrote: "bush and his cronies are at least as deceptive as michael moore. the crucial difference: thousands of people don't die as a result of the deceptions of the latter." but now that i think about it, that's not the real point here--i'm muddying the issue by distinguishing the effects of their deceptions in that way. the rub is that while the media remain skeptical of moore's "conspiracies" (as they should), with rare exception they lapped up bush and co.'s "conspiracies" with gusto. cranberg lists these as indicative of the press's responses to Powell's speech:

"the core of his argument was unassailable," "a smoking fusillade . . . a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable," "an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence," "only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction," "an ironclad case . . . incontrovertible evidence," "succinct and damning evidence . . . the case is closed."

now honestly, though i'm a leftie, if this sort of fawning hyperbole were applied to moore's insinuations in f-911 even i would complain.

and what was powell's evidence, besides the deceptively edited communique? cranberg details his (powell's) sources:

Powell cited almost no verifiable sources. Many of his assertions were unattributed. The speech had more than 40 vague references such as "human sources," "an eyewitness," "detainees," "an al-Qaeda source," "a senior defector," "intelligence sources," and the like.

cranberg concludes:

Journalists are supposed to be professional skeptics, but nowhere in the commentary was there a smidgen of skepticism about the quality of Powell's evidence.

so, i say let's be skeptical of all who claim to present a perspective on reality, whether they use filmed interviews and stock footage or slideshows of satellite photos and transcripts of communiques.

A Healthy Dose of Skepticism

Old news, I know, but it's interesting to consider daniel okrent's (the new york times public editor) apology for not being more skeptical of government claims about iraq to a. o. scott's skeptical treatment of Michael Moore's "op-ed" film.

Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves....

We have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge....

Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. . . . Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all....

We consider the story of Iraq's weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business....

but when it comes to michael moore's new movie, nytimes critic a. o. scott (who nevertheless recommends it) seems to get it right the first time: he accuses moore of "blithely trampling the boundary between documentary and demagoguery." calls the f-911 "unabashedly partisan." refers to moore's "agitprop stunts", and the film's "cheap shots and inconsistencies."

so, i guess my point here is, is the press and the public in greater danger of being hoodwinked by the michael moores of the world, or by the chalabis and cheneys? you decide.

Who is More Deceptive: Moore or Bush and Co.?

Below is a dialogue (email originally) I carried on with a centrist friend of mine. He rightly points out that Michael Moore is downright deceptive in his films. After reading the following the link he provides, I have to agree. But I argue that Bush and company have used similar techniques to the greater detriment of democracy. My part is in red.

**********

i didnt see bowling for columbine, but i heard lots about how important and significant it was; i assume you did see it.

id really like to ask you to read this page and tell me what you think about moore did in that film:

obviously, this has implications for how we should view moore's other films; i'll send some other discussions of specifics of F9/11, but i'd like to "cut to the chase" here by quoting something from near the end of the above webpage that i think gets to the most central point to be addressed here:

"The point is not that Bowling [for Columbine] is non-objective, or biased. The point is that it is **intentionally deceptive**."

my reactions:

1) moore is apparently more deceptive than i thought, at least in the bowling for columbine film.

2) i'll continue to watch his films, with a larger grain of salt.

now, i have a report i'd like you to read, which deals with something a bit more important for our democracy than moore's films. it's called "Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq." it's a partisan piece produced by the unites states house of representatives committee on government reform. it's in PDF format below, attached to this message. i'd really like to ask you to read this report and tell me what you think about what bush did in leading the country to war. obviously, this has implications for how we should view bush's other initiatives. i'd like to "cut to the chase" here by quoting something from the introduction that i think gets to the most central point to be addressed here:

The Iraq on the Record database contains 237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials. Ten of the statements were SIMPLY FALSE (my emphasis).

let me tell you my reactions to this report.

1) bush and his cronies are at least as deceptive as michael moore. the crucial difference: thousands of people don't die as a result of the deceptions of the latter.

2) i'll continue to listen to his speeches, as always, with a large grain of salt.

Buckley Regrets War

"With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago.... If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Dialogue on Reagan Vs. Clinton Scandals

Here's a dialogue (originally email) that I carried on with a conservative friend of mine over whether Reagan's or Clinton's administrations were more corrupt. My part is in red. I broke his original email into parts to which I responded.

**********

Would you agree with me that the scandals in Reagan's administration, principally the Iran-Contra affair, should be more disturbing to a concerned citizen, and are potentially more damaging to democracy, than the scandals of Clinton, i.e., Whitewater and the Lewinksy affair? If not, why not?

Don't think so. Iran/Contra was the pursuit of reasonable policy goals (encouragement of moderate elements in Iran and resistance to a Cuban satellite in Nicaragua) by ill-advised means.

"ill-advised"? Don't you mean "illegal"? Fourteen people in Reagan's government were charged with criminal violations, of which thirteen were convicted, including Robert McFarlane (Reagan's National Security Advisor), John Poindexter (McFarlane's one-time deputy and short-lived replacement as Reagan's National Security Advisor), and Caspar Weinberger (Reagan's Secretary of Defense). They may have been "reasonable policy goals" for some--the point is that, after Congress passed the Boland Amendment, it was illegal to pursue them through the financial scheme that Reagan's cabinet concocted. And it was of course illegal to lie to Congress about what happened. Reagan's top cabinet members violated the law, lied to Congress about it, and they were found guilty in federal court. Case closed.

Reagan's general support for such goals could have surprised no one who was paying attention during his first term, on the basis of which he was returned for a second with historic electoral margins.

So the will of the people is more important than the letter of the law? By that reckoning Gore should be president.

The ensuing fight was between the democratically elected executive and the democratically elected legislature over who had constitutional authority to set policy for Latin America.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here: A "fight" about who had "constitutional authority to set policy"? Are you referring to the debate that took place between the Administration and Congress over policy in Nicaragua prior to Iran-Contra crimes? Or are you referring to the defense that was used in court?

Sure enough, when the executive overreached, the legislative branch exercised its oversight function and gave Reagan a black eye before then reversing its prohibition of aid to the Nicaraguan resistance. That's how democracies function.

"executive overreached"? Earlier you used "by ill-advised means". Why not "cabinet members committed a crime" and "by illegal, or criminal, means"? Does this mean you disagree with the guilty verdicts? And if so, which ones? The ones based on violation of the Boland Amendment, or the ones based on obstruction of justice?

"That's how democracies function". Well, yes, the same conclusion could be drawn from the events of Watergate. The system ultimately worked, so to speak, but it doesn't follow that, thereby, no damage is done. Most of those convicted in Iran-Contra, several after being pardoned in the last gasp of GHW Bush's presidency, have gone on to other political, lucrative consulting, and even, in the case of Oliver North, media careers (Fox of course). To me that sends a big message to the people: "It's who ya know baby!" Everyone who watches The Sopranos on HBO knows that if you're willing to keep your mouth shut and not rat out your friends, you'll be taken care of. Does the aftermath of Iran-Contra bespeak of the success of democratic values or, ahem, "fam-uh-lee" values?

Whitewater was troubling in that it opened the head of the executive branch to pressure from past associates who might be in a position to blackmail him.

This POSSIBILITY just doesn't concern me as much as ACTUAL criminal activity on the part of Cabinet members and other high-level officials in Reagan's Administration.

Zippergate was troubling not only in virtue of its blackmail possibilities (if I'd been a foreign agent I'd sure have been trying to get my hooks into Clinton through one of his women)

How would this play out? I don't read spy novels so it's hard for me to imagine. A Chinese agent appears at local D.C. bar to make contact with Monica Lewinsky. The agent: "Ms. Lewinsky, if you perform oral sex on President we give you Sax Fifth Avenue charge card. But you ask him first about location of nuclear submarine. Do not let him distract you with poetry of Walt Whitman. Walt Whitman no like women anyway!" Okay, sorry, bad joke, I'll keep the day job. But, am I careless for just NOT BEING ABLE TO IMAGINE A SCENARIO THAT I CAN TAKE SERIOUSLY in response to this concern?

but also in its revelation that the President lacked common decency (receiving sexual favors from a woman who could have been his daughter)

See, this is exactly where terms like "ill-advised" or "overreached" (lol! sorry) seem to apply to me.

but also that he had such disdain for the law that he would lie under oath to preserve the secrecy of his relationship with her.

Yes, it was an ugly and an illegal lie, I won't pull any punches with my sweetheart president. Did it hurt democracy? Yep. I admit it. It made people even more cynical, and reinforced the public's notion that to get out of your just deserts all you need, or need to be, is a good lawyer. But if Monica had been paying him for the privilege and he had been using that money to fund a covert national healthcare... okay, my jokes are stupid I know.

And I wonder how many American's really believed that Reagan, as he said under oath, couldn't remember.

I think the biggest scandal of the Clinton administration is the one you don't mention: the willingness to court money laundered from abroad and open the White House to influence by undeclared agents of a foreign power.

I got three words for you: The Family Saud.

Again, for all the Keystone Kops flavor of Iran-Contra, I'll take Reagan.

Ah yes those wacky Keystone Kops--did I miss the circus where they were convicted of obstruction, tax fraud, conspiracy to defraud the US, and perjury?