COMMENTARY: ‘Washington Post’ caught redhanded in warmongering editorial manipulation

Details

Barry Grey argued on Saturday that “[t]here is no innocent explanation for [major national newspapers’] decision to suppress” (more precisely, to neglect and downplay) the story of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s indictment of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy on Thurs., Feb. 1, in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[1]  --  Coverage accorded to his testimony was sparse indeed.  --  And where it was reported, it was sometimes distorted.  --  Grey noted that “the [Washington] Post’s web edition carried an Associated Press report on Brzezinski’s appearance.  That article . . . omitted the suggestion that a terrorist attack within the U.S. could become the justification for war, and it removed the quotation marks from Brzezinski’s talk of a ‘defensive’ war against Iran.”  --  An MSNBC posting of an Associated Press story on Brzezinski’s speech did not justify Grey’s criticisms.[2]  --  But the version of the same article posted by the *Washington Post* to which Grey called attention certainly did.[3]  --  UFPPC’s Fred Moreau has performed a laborious paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of how the Washington Post altered the story, and his conclusions are striking, even shocking.[4]   --  “Isn’t there a law against this, or at least some procedure in the journalistic profession to have the individual(s) responsible for this travesty dismissed from their jobs?” Moreau exclaims at one point.  --  Grey and Moreau raise profoundly disturbing questions regarding the editorial motives that are guiding the Washington Post at this crucial time in the nation’s history, questions that should be investigated by professional watchdog organizations....

1.

News & analysis

North America

WHY IS THE U.S. PRESS SILENT ON BRZEZINSKI’S WARNINGS OF WAR AGAINST IRAN?
By Barry Grey

World Socialist Web Site
February 3, 2007

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f03.shtml
or
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070202223429322 (abridged)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The major national newspapers and most broadcast outlets failed even to report Thursday’s stunning testimony by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is among the most prominent figures within the U.S. foreign policy establishment. He delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the policy of the Bush administration was leading inevitably to a military confrontation with Iran which would have disastrous consequences for U.S. imperialism.

Most significant and disturbing was Brzezinski’s suggestion that the Bush administration might manufacture a pretext to justify a military attack on Iran. Presenting what he called a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iraq,” Brzezinski laid out the following series of events: “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran, culminating in, ‘defensive’ U.S. military action against Iran . . .” [Emphasis added].

Thus Brzezinski opined that a U.S. military attack on Iran would be an aggressive action, presented as though it were a defensive response to alleged Iranian provocations, and came close to suggesting, without explicitly stating as much, that the White House was capable of manufacturing or allowing a terrorist attack within the U.S. to provide a casus belli for war.

It is self-evident that such testimony at an open congressional hearing from someone with decades of experience in the U.S. foreign policy establishment and the closest ties to the military and intelligence apparatus is not only newsworthy, but of the most immense and grave import. Any objective and conscientious newspaper or news channel would consider it an obligation to inform the public of such a development.

Yet neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post carried so much as a news brief on Brzezinski’s testimony in their Friday editions. Nor did USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. All of these publications, of course, have well-staffed Washington bureaus and regularly cover congressional hearings -- especially those dealing with such burning political questions as the war in Iraq.

There is no innocent explanation for their decision to suppress this story. The *Washington Post* on Thursday published a large page-two column and photo on Henry Kissinger’s appearance the previous day before the same Senate committee. The former secretary of state under Richard Nixon gave testimony that was generally supportive of the Bush administration’s war policy.

Moreover, the Post’s web edition carried an Associated Press report on Brzezinski’s appearance. That article introduced subtle but significant changes to Brzezinski’s speculative scenario of the road to war with Iran which had the effect of underplaying the sharpness and urgency of Brzezinski’s critique of the Bush administration. It omitted the suggestion that a terrorist attack within the U.S. could become the justification for war, and it removed the quotation marks from Brzezinski’s talk of a “defensive” war against Iran.

The World Socialist Web Site on Friday telephoned the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today to ask for an explanation for their failure to report Brzezinski’s testimony. None of the newspapers returned our calls.

As for the television news outlets, the “News Hour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS showed a clip of Brzezinski laying out his war scenario before the Senate committee, without making any comment. “NBC Nightly News” ignored the story entirely.

The suppression of this damning critique of the Iraq war, the conspiratorial methods of the Bush administration, and its drive to an even wider war in the Middle East is one more demonstration of the corrupt and reactionary character of the American mass media. It indicates that the establishment media is preparing once again, as in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, to serve as a sounding board for the administration’s war propaganda and lies.

2.

World news

Conflict in Iraq

BRZEZINSKI SAYS WAR IN IRAQ A CALAMITY

** Former U.S. security adviser warns of ‘head-on conflict’ with Iran **

Associated Press
February 1, 2007

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16934081/

WASHINGTON -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large."

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Brzezinski skewered Bush administration policy as driven by "imperial hubris" and as a disaster on historic, strategic, and moral grounds.

While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did.

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," said the security adviser in the Democratic administration of former President Jimmy Carter.

He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, and culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a spreading quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

TROOP WITHDRAWAL

Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski, who holds a senior position at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the United States should announce unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time."

Second, he said, the United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed.

Instead, he said, the administration is developing a mythical, historical narrative to justify the case for a protracted and potential expanding war.

Initially based on false claims Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, Brzezinski said "the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism."

Also testifying, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad, but it would not change the situation in Iraq fundamentally.

‘A TACTIC, NOT A STRATEGY’

"It is a tactic, not a strategy," the former Air Force general said.

Scowcroft recommended that U.S. troops gradually be deployed away from sectarian conflicts in Iraq, which should be handled by Iraqi troops "however well or badly they are able to handle it."

U.S. troops should concentrate on training the Iraqi army, combating insurgents, limiting outside intervention and helping to protect Iraqi institutions, he said.

"That does not mean that the American presence should be reduced," Scowcroft said. "That should follow success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance of others."

3.

Nation

Wires

EX-ADVISERS OFFER REVISED IRAQ PLANS
By Barry Schweid

Associated Press
February 1, 2007

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/01/AR2007020101309.html

WASHINGTON -- President Carter's national security adviser said Thursday the Iraq war was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict" with Iran and other parts of the Muslim world.

Zbigniew Brzezinski also told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush administration policy was driven by "imperial hubris" and has proved to be a disaster on historic, strategic and moral grounds.

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," Brzezinski said.

Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad. But he said it would not lead to fundamental changes in the situation.

"It is a tactic, not a strategy," he said.

Brzezinski set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the U.S., followed by accusations that Iran is responsible for the failure and then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. This scenario, he said, would play out with a defensive U.S. military action against Iran.

That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a quagmire that eventually would range across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski said the U.S. should announce with no ambiguity its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time."

Brzezinski, a professor at the School for Advanced International Studies, said the U.S. should set with Iraqi leaders a date for the completion of the U.S. military disengagement.

Scowcroft recommended that U.S. troops gradually be deployed away from sectarian conflicts in Iraq, which should Iraqis should handle "however well or badly they are able to handle it."

U.S. troops should concentrate on training the Iraqi army, combating insurgents, limiting outside intervention and helping to protect Iraqi institutions, he said.

"That does not mean that the American presence should be reduced," Scowcroft said. "That should follow success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance of others."

4.

PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS OF THE WASHINGTON POST’S DISTORTION OF A FEB. 1, 2007, ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT ON TESTIMONY TO THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE BY FORMER U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
By Fred Moreau

United for Peace of Pierce County (WA)
February 3, 2007

In the following text, a version of an AP story as posted on Feb. 1, 2007, by MSNBC is collated paragraph by paragraph with a version featured the same day on the on the web site Washington Post. Each paragraph of the MSNBC version is presented first, followed by the symbol “/” and then the Washington Post version. A brief comment to each paragraph or other element of the story is appended in brackets ([]). The juxtaposition proves to be a devastating exposure of substantive editorial distortion of the news by the Washington Post, one of America’s most important newspapers.

***

BRZEZINSKI SAYS WAR IN IRAQ A CALAMITY / EX-ADVISERS OFFER REVISED IRAQ PLANS [Comment: The striking word “calamity” an Brzezinski’s name is eliminated from the headline by the Washington Post; the expression “war in Iraq” is also eliminated and replaced with the anodyne “Iraq plans.” Thus a startling and attention-grabbing headline becomes flat, unattractive, and tiresome.]

** Former U.S. security adviser warns of ‘head-on conflict’ with Iran ** / -- [Comment: The dramatic subtitle is eliminated by the Post.]

Associated Press
February 1, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser, told Congress the war in Iraq was a calamity and was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large." / WASHINGTON -- President Carter's national security adviser said Thursday the Iraq war was likely to lead to "a head-on conflict" with Iran and other parts of the Muslim world. [Comment: Brzezinski’s name is eliminated from the story’s lead by the Post, as is his assertion that the war is a calamity, which never appears in the Post’s version. In addiiton, “much of the world of Islam at large” is diminished to “other parts of the Muslim world.]

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Brzezinski skewered Bush administration policy as driven by "imperial hubris" and as a disaster on historic, strategic, and moral grounds. / Zbigniew Brzezinski also told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush administration policy was driven by "imperial hubris" and has proved to be a disaster on historic, strategic and moral grounds. [Comment: The Post cuts the strong verb “skewered.”]

While other former U.S. officials and ex-generals have criticized administration policy in committee hearings, none savaged it to the degree Brzezinski did. / ** [The Post eliminates this striking and important comparison.]

"If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," said the security adviser in the Democratic administration of former President Jimmy Carter. / "If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, and I emphasize what I am about to say, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large," Brzezinski said. [Comment: No significant change, except that the Post drops the identification of the administration in which Brzezinski served as “Democratic.”]

He set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the administration, followed by accusations Iran is responsible for the failure, then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran, and culminating in so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran. / Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad. But he said it would not lead to fundamental changes in the situation. / Brzezinski set out as a plausible scenario for military collision: Iraq fails to meet benchmarks set by the U.S., followed by accusations that Iran is responsible for the failure and then a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran. This scenario, he said, would play out with a defensive U.S. military action against Iran. [Comment: In the Post version, benchmarks are set “by the U.S.,” rather than “by the administration,” enhancing their prestige. In a spectacular and breath-taking editorial change, the Post changes the meaning of the story’s original expression, “so-called defensive U.S. military action against Iran,” and transforms this into “a defensive U.S. military action against Iran.” Aggression becomes self-defense. (Isn’t there a law against this, or at least some procedure in the journalistic profession to have the individual(s) responsible for this travesty dismissed from their jobs?)]

That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a spreading quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. / That, Brzezinski said, would plunge the United States into a quagmire that eventually would range across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. [Comment: in the Post’s version, the “quagmire” has lost the qualifier “spreading.”]

TROOP WITHDRAWAL / ** [Comment: The Post has eliminated the subhead.]

Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski, who holds a senior position at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the United States should announce unambiguously its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time." / Proposing a massive shift in policy, Brzezinski said the U.S. should announce with no ambiguity its determination to leave Iraq "in a reasonably short period of time." [Comment: Brzezinski’s current position is eliminated, and moved to the following paragraph. “Unambiguously” is changed to “with no ambiguity,” for reasons we are unable to divine.]

Second, he said, the United States should announce that it is undertaking talks with the Iraqi leaders to jointly set with them a date by which U.S. military disengagement should be completed. / Brzezinski, a professor at the School for Advanced International Studies, said the U.S. should set with Iraqi leaders a date for the completion of the U.S. military disengagement. [Comment: The Post makes this action contingent upon agreement with Iraqi leaders (“should set with Iraqi leaders”) rather than unilateral on the part of the U.S. (“should announce it is undertaking talks with Iraqi leaders”).]

Instead, he said, the administration is developing a mythical, historical narrative to justify the case for a protracted and potential expanding war. / ** [Comment: Brzezinski’s testimony contained an important and historically informed demonstration of the absurdity of the Bush administration’s comparison of Islamism to Nazism, alluded to here and in the following paragraph. This demonstration is eliminated altogether by the Post.]

Initially based on false claims Iraq had secret arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, Brzezinski said "the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism." / ** [See preceding comment.]

Also testifying, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser to Republican Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad, but it would not change the situation in Iraq fundamentally. / Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush, said a buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq "might be a positive blip" if it helped stabilize Baghdad. But he said it would not lead to fundamental changes in the situation. [Comment: These sentences were moved up in the Post version, so that the interrupted the account of Brzezinski’s testimony. The Post eliminated the identification of the adminstrations of Presidents Ford and Bush as “Republican.”]

‘A TACTIC, NOT A STRATEGY’ / ** [Comment: The Post has eliminated the subhead.]

"It is a tactic, not a strategy," the former Air Force general said. / "It is a tactic, not a strategy," he said. [Comment: The Post eliminated mention of the fact that Brent Scowcroft is a former Air Force general.]

Scowcroft recommended that U.S. troops gradually be deployed away from sectarian conflicts in Iraq, which should be handled by Iraqi troops "however well or badly they are able to handle it." / Scowcroft recommended that U.S. troops gradually be deployed away from sectarian conflicts in Iraq, which should Iraqis should handle "however well or badly they are able to handle it." [Comment: a slight rearrangement, to no significant effect.]

U.S. troops should concentrate on training the Iraqi army, combating insurgents, limiting outside intervention and helping to protect Iraqi institutions, he said. / U.S. troops should concentrate on training the Iraqi army, combating insurgents, limiting outside intervention and helping to protect Iraqi institutions, he said. [Comment: This paragraph and the following paragraph are the only ones in the entire story that are not reworked in some way.]

"That does not mean that the American presence should be reduced," Scowcroft said. "That should follow success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance of others." / "That does not mean that the American presence should be reduced," Scowcroft said. "That should follow success in our efforts, not the calendar or the performance of others." [See preceding comment.]