CNN omits sections from Blix's report

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/sprj.irq....pt.1/index.html

CNN's transcript of Blix

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2763653.stm

BBC's transcript of Blix

 

750 words were removed in the CNN version.

 

Interestingly enough, the removed sections are Blix refuting the "smoking gun" evidence:

 

Not least against this background, a letter of 12 February from Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate may be of relevance . It presents a list of 83 names of participants "in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field, which took place in the summer of 1991". As the absence of adequate evidence of that destruction has been and remains an important reason why quantities of chemicals have been deemed "unaccounted for", the presentation of a list of persons who can be interviewed about the actions appears useful and pertains to cooperation on substance.

 

[All of the following text is missing from CNN's "transcript"]:

 

I trust that the Iraqi side will put together a similar list of names of persons who participated in the unilateral destruction of other proscribed items, notably in the biological field.

 

The Iraqi side also informed us that the commission, which had been appointed in the wake of our finding 12 empty chemical weapons warheads, had had its mandate expanded to look for any still existing proscribed items. This was welcomed.

 

A second commission, we learnt, has now been appointed with the task of searching all over Iraq for more documents relevant to the elimination of proscribed items and programmes. It is headed by the former minister of oil, General Amer Rashid, and is to have very extensive powers of search in industry, administration and even private houses.

 

The two commissions could be useful tools to come up with proscribed items to be destroyed and with new documentary evidence. They evidently need to work fast and effectively to convince us, and the world, that this is a serious effort.

 

The matter of private interviews was discussed at length during our meeting in Baghdad. The Iraqi side confirmed the commitment, which it made to us on 20 January, to encourage persons asked to accept such interviews, whether in or out of Iraq. So far, we have only had interviews in Baghdad. A number of persons have declined to be interviewed, unless they were allowed to have an official present or were allowed to tape the interview.

 

Three persons that had previously refused interviews on Unmovic's terms, subsequently accepted such interviews just prior to our talks in Baghdad on 8 and 9 February. These interviews proved informative. No further interviews have since been accepted on our terms.

 

I hope this will change. We feel that interviews conducted without any third party present and without tape recording would provide the greatest credibility. At the recent meeting in Baghdad, as on several earlier occasions, my colleague Dr ElBaradei and I have urged the Iraqi side to enact legislation implementing the UN prohibitions regarding weapons of mass destruction.

 

In a letter just received two days ago, we were informed that this process was progressing well and this morning we had a message that legislation has now been adopted by the Iraqi National Assembly in an extraordinary session. This is a positive step.

 

Mr President, I should like to make some comments on the role of intelligence in connection with inspections in Iraq. A credible inspection regime requires that Iraq provide full co-operation on "process" - granting immediate access everywhere to inspectors - and on substance, providing full declarations supported by relevant information and material.

 

However, with the closed society in Iraq of today and the history of inspections there, other sources of information, such as defectors and government intelligence agencies are required to aid the inspection process. I remember how, in 1991, several inspections in Iraq, which were based on information received from a government, helped to disclose important parts of the nuclear weapons programme. It was realised that an international organisation authorised to perform inspections anywhere on the ground could make good use of information obtained from governments with eyes in the sky, ears in the ether, access to defectors, and both eyes and ears on the market for weapons-related material. It was understood that the information residing in the intelligence services of governments could come to very active use in the international effort to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This remains true and we have by now a good deal of experience in the matter.

 

International organisations need to analyse such information critically and especially benefit when it comes from more than one source. The intelligence agencies, for their part, must protect their sources and methods. Those who provide such information must know that it will be kept in strict confidence and be known to very few people.

 

Unmovic has achieved good working relations with intelligence agencies and the amount of information provided has been gradually increasing. However, we must recognise that there are limitations and that misinterpretations can occur. Intelligence information has been useful for Unmovic.

 

In one case, it led us to a private home where documents mainly relating to laser enrichment of uranium were found. In other cases, intelligence has led to sites where no proscribed items were found. Even in such cases, however, inspection of these sites were useful in proving the absence of such items and in some cases the presence of other items - conventional munitions. It showed that conventional arms are being moved around the country and that movements are not necessarily related to weapons of mass destruction.

 

The presentation of intelligence information by the US secretary of state suggested that Iraq had prepared for inspections by cleaning up sites and removing evidence of proscribed weapons programmes. I would like to comment only on one case, which we are familiar with, namely, the trucks identified by analysts as being for chemical decontamination at a munitions depot.

 

This was a declared site, and it was certainly one of the sites Iraq would have expected us to inspect. We have noted that the two satellite images of the site were taken several weeks apart.

 

-this is where CNN picks up again-

 

So, CNN ignored Blix's responses regarding Bush's evidence for going to war.

 

 

So, who thought CNN had an anti-war slant?

[Guest JMA]

Weird. I wonder why they'd do that. One of the higher ups must not have liked what he said.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

War = ratings.

 

No war = no ratings.

 

CNN = wants ratings.

[Guest JMA]

Hey Tyler, is that Rob Stone shaking Pat Buchanan's hand (in your sig)?

[Guest Tim]

War = ratings.

 

No war = no ratings.

 

CNN = wants ratings.

News Corporation (owners of Fox) shares have fallen in anticipation of lower advertising revenues due to 24 hour war coverage. So, from the point of view of Rupert Murdoch, war = bad.

[Guest JMA]

News Corporation (owners of Fox) shares have fallen in anticipation of lower advertising revenues due to 24 hour war coverage. So, from the point of view of Rupert Murdoch, war = bad.

That's kind of funny. On one hand you have Murdoch's ultra-conservatisism and hawkish attitude versus his desire to make money. I say his desire to make money is greater. Maybe there will be fewer hawks on Faux News now.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Hey Tyler, is that Rob Stone shaking Pat Buchanan's hand (in your sig)?

Yessir, I think so.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

War = ratings.

 

No war = no ratings.

 

CNN = wants ratings.

News Corporation (owners of Fox) shares have fallen in anticipation of lower advertising revenues due to 24 hour war coverage. So, from the point of view of Rupert Murdoch, war = bad.

A-HA!

 

Au contraire.

 

Prewar = no ratings

 

War = double ratings

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

On one hand you have Murdoch's ultra-conservatisism and hawkish attitude

Amazing that everything that brings him ratings ain't very Conservative, isn't it?

 

* Sticking Beverly Hills 90210 in family hour isn't very Conservative, but made him lots of ratings.

 

* Running garbage TV shows like "MAN VS BEAST" and "Temptation Island" also in primetime sure isn't that Conservative at all, but appearantly sleazy TV gets ratings or else Fox wouldn't become known as The Sleazy Game Show Network.

 

* Heck, even the Power Rangers isn't that Conservative, but he toppled ABC in Saturday Morning with them. (As a slight aside, Haim Saban, responsible for Power Rangers and a bazillion other Japanese TV shows that have been poorly translated and edited for an American audience, is a big funder to California governor Gray Davis and holds the record for the single largest donation check written to the Democratic Party ever.)

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Hey Tyler, is that Rob Stone shaking Pat Buchanan's hand (in your sig)?

How is that Rob. The guy in the pic looks like he's about 50.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Stupidity often makes you appear to age quite a few years.

 

...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Seriously. Who is that guy?

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

I dunno, it's a random dude shaking Buchanan's hand.

 

Altavista rules

[Guest RevEvil]

Kinda looks like a fat white Colin Powell.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

In interesting news, CNN fixed it.

[cawthon777 0]

Weird. I wonder why they'd do that. One of the higher ups must not have liked what he said.

Typical gatekeeping. Only letting in the information you want and leaving the rest out. Gotta love the Communist News Network.

[Guest JMA]

Typical gatekeeping. Only letting in the information you want and leaving the rest out. Gotta love the Communist News Network.

It's still leagues better than Faux News.

[cawthon777 0]

It's still leagues better than Faux News.

Because it's all about communism?

[Guest JMA]

Because it's all about communism?

I don't see where you get the communism thing. It's a capitalist network if I ever saw one. It's still more moderate than channels like Fox News or MSNBC.

[cawthon777 0]

Because it's all about communism?

I don't see where you get the communism thing. It's a capitalist network if I ever saw one. It's still more moderate than channels like Fox News or MSNBC.

I'll give you MSNBC for sure. From what I can tell, CNN has cleaned up itself over the past couple of years and moved more towards the middle. I stopped watching it quite a while back due to its catering towards the bleeding-heart demographic that I don't really fit into.

[Guest JMA]

I'll give you MSNBC for sure. From what I can tell, CNN has cleaned up itself over the past couple of years and moved more towards the middle.

Exactly. I'm glad we could finally agree on something.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Typical gatekeeping. Only letting in the information you want and leaving the rest out. Gotta love the Communist News Network.

Wait wait wait.. They were swerving it so that the reader had a favorable impression of the war, and you're ragging on them for being too left?

[cawthon777 0]

Typical gatekeeping.  Only letting in the information you want and leaving the rest out.  Gotta love the Communist News Network.

Wait wait wait.. They were swerving it so that the reader had a favorable impression of the war, and you're ragging on them for being too left?

*Hangs head in corner*

 

I can't read or write...