Is this how "news" re-writes "history"?

It is very infrequently I that get sufficiently irate with someone that I take the step of calling them out in public. This, I regret, is one. To make matters worse, it comes from a blog - The Art of the Blog - that has some reputation and regard as a site of good analysis and comment.

To be fair, the Artist has relied (I suspect) upon the analysis of a "reporter" whose name is unknown to me, and who - on the basis of the article quoted - deserves to stay that way for a long time.

So, to the Artist... for the post in question.

Your first link is where the problem really starts, but as you will see in the comments the Artist is prepared to stand by the accuracy of the article and his own conclusions. It comes from "WorldTribune.com"...

Friday, June 11, 2004

The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Now go read the UNSC report, tell me where the word "Syria" is mentioned - the para number would suffice. Certainly the "find" function in Acrobat can not.

While there, you might like to look on the context in which the "photos" were presented. It was not under the heading of "Evidence". Those photographs the "journalist" interpreted in that manner were in fact showing the capability of satellite photography as used by both UNMOVIC and the US team. That is a far cry from "proving" anything.

In fact, the photos show a "storage facility" that had been subject to "close monitoring". Yes, it does show its removal. The report says nothing else, only how the satellite photography and associated software can be used.

Let us take what I see as the critical paras from that report… UNMOVIC

2. During the period under review, the Acting Executive Chairman has continued the practice of briefing the respective Presidents of the Security Council, representatives of Member States and officials of the Secretariat on the activities of UNMOVIC.

3. During the period, no official information was made available to UNMOVIC
on either the work or the results of the investigations carried out in Iraq by the Iraq Survey Group, led by the United States of America, nor did the Survey Group
request any information from UNMOVIC. While the Commission has examined the publicly released portion of the testimony given by Charles Duelfer, the head of the Survey Group, on 30 March before the United States Senate's Armed Services Committee, it has not had access to the full text. The provision of detailed supporting information relating to the public testimony would assist UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in discharging their mandate to continue to assess Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities.

4. In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group
continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe
that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make
final judgements with confidence as to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
programmes and to determine the truth of their existence. He said that more work
had to be done to gather critical information about the regime, its intentions and its capabilities. He also pointed to a number of practical difficulties facing his team, including security, delays in translating documentation and the continued reluctance of Iraqi personnel to speak freely.

5. Mr. Duelfer's publicly released testimony mentions, as an example of
uncertain Iraqi intent, that the Tuwaitha Agricultural and Biological Research Centre had equipment suitable for the production of biological agents and that research work there on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis would be important to a
biological weapon programme. UNMOVIC and its predecessor, the United Nations
Special Commission, inspected that site on numerous occasions for similar reasons
and had categorized it as being subject to intensive monitoring. The site was also
inspected regularly by IAEA. The testimony also refers to new information on
unmanned aerial vehicles being developed and on long-range ballistic missile
development. While the Commission has considerable knowledge of Iraq's
unmanned aerial vehicle programmes and long-range missiles, the testimony is not
sufficiently detailed for the Commission's experts to determine the extent to which
such information was known to UNMOVIC.

The emphasis in that extract is unashamedly my own.

Now, please note, who is "Mr. Duelfer"? All of this section of the UN report is commentary on testimony that this mysterious "Mr Duelfer" gave on 30 March before the United States Senate's Armed Services Committee. The report bemoans the fact that while the UN "has examined the
publicly released portion of the testimony given by Charles Duelfer, the head of the
Survey Group, on 30 March before the United States Senate's Armed Services
Committee, it has not had access to the full text."

There follows a discussion on the "discovery" of missile engine parts in a Rotterdam junk yard. Yes, and I also remember the video showing UN inspectors watching as Iraqi tanks were driven over SCUD missiles lying on the ground. Yes, there are many transactions of material into and out of Iraq which UNMOVIC was able to track.

The second report that you quote has the following…

The administration acknowledged last week that the search for banned weapons is largely over. The Iraq Survey Group's chief, Charles Duelfer, is expected to submit the final installments of his report in February. A small number of the organization's experts will remain on the job in case new intelligence on Iraqi WMD is unearthed.

But the officials familiar with the search say U.S. authorities have found no evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein transferred WMD or related equipment out of Iraq.

A special adviser to the CIA director, Duelfer declined an interview request through an agency spokesman. In his last public statements, he told a Senate panel last October that it remained unclear whether banned weapons could have been moved from Iraq.

''What I can tell you is that I believe we know a lot of materials left Iraq and went to Syria. There was certainly a lot of traffic across the border points,'' he said. ''But whether in fact in any of these trucks there was WMD-related materials, I cannot say.''

Last week, a congressional official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said suggestions that weapons or components were sent from Iraq were based on speculation stemming from uncorroborated information.

But what is this? Is this the same "Mr Duelfer" that was quoted at length in the UN report?

To make matters worse, the Artist is convinced and satisfied that the US Report - that of Mr Duelfer - states that this second report categorically states that the WMD did NOT go to Syria. Well, after due reconsideration, the Artist says again that his analysis is right.

Oh, what a difference a day makes… I beg to differ. He has, in fact, gotten his propaganda so confused that he knows not which is sauce and which the goosefat.

If I had the time and the inclination I could probably debunk most of the other incorrect and misleading statements in the worldtribune.com page. But, how about as an exercise in objectivity you try it for yourself?

Perhaps if I take as a quick example that of the SCUD missiles. A little time spent with a google search turns up the following...

Report from the CIA

Now please, take the opportunity and the time to read right through this report. There is debate about whether all of the SCUD missiles and derivatives were destroyed. The conclusion of the report is in a Table right toward the end. Best analysis of the information to hand indicates the possibility that one SCUD was unaccounted for.

How does this fit with the article and the UNMOVIC report? Read it again. There is reference to, and a photo of, a SCUD missile engine found in a Rotterdam scrapyard. The CIA report draws the conclusion that this may well be the missing engine from the missing SCUD. My reading of the UNMOVIC report says that is also what the serial number says.

I could go on, but it gets so tiresome correcting the badly disguised attempts of so-called journalists - a more correct name would be "propaganda distributors" - to rewrite both the truth and history and more specifically the people who blindly accept their "word" as Gospel truth and pedal it to the rest of the world.

As a personal note to "the Artist", I enjoy some of your writing, even if I disagree with the politics behind the thoughts you set down.

Please, PLEASE, try and be a little more careful with your sources and even more careful about how you analyse them. You do yourself no justice at all with stupidities such as this posting...

I don't blame you for your misunderstanding or being misled. I do suggest that you be somewhat more careful in selecting your sources.

UPDATE - 20 Jan 05

Give credit where due, the Artist has amended the post that was getting my goat. Can I just say that this is exactly one reason why I try to obtain independant or direct verification of the more crucial or contentious posts that appear here from time to time.

I have been known to make the same mistake - fear not. There is nothing better for a swollen head than a healthy portion of crow pie.

Artist, I salute you.