All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

CNN lies -- film at 11

darobin on 2003-02-20T16:52:35

"CNN is doing a bang up job. As Dan Hon investigates, their online transcript of Hans Blix's report to the UN is missing 866 words. The bits Blix said about Iraq complying with the UN resolution, and the bit where he refutes Colin Powell's evidence from the week before. Nice and subtle, boys." (from Dan Hon, via DannyAyers).

What do you know, next we might be finding out that unloaded missiles fly a little farther than when loaded. SHOCKING!!!

US Media complicity

ziggy on 2003-02-20T17:37:23

You sound like you've never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin. :-)

Re:US Media complicity

darobin on 2003-02-20T18:15:46

I was being midly ironic ;) Lets hope that the consequences will be less dire this time...

CNN

vek on 2003-02-20T18:16:59

Yeah, there was a discussion over at kuro5hin about this very topic. Amongst the 'CNN is just a part of the Bush propaganda machine' posts was an alternative conspiracy theory:

Instead of the usual "CNN is predominantly " rants, how about another theory: CNN wants a war. No, not because they support Bush ( a couple years ago they were called the clinton news network by some folks, make up your mind on who cnn favors ) , but because it boosts ratings.

When Persion Gulf War v1.0 broke out, CNN was on the frontlines. Everybody praised them as being the "leaders" and that they finally "came into their own". Hell, they even made a movie about it. But 12 years has passed, CNN is getting stomped by FOX News Network, etc etc, and jobs are getting cut. So do you think that CNN wont jump on a chance to get their name out in front again?....

Missles

pudge on 2003-02-22T17:10:12

What do you know, next we might be finding out that unloaded missiles fly a little farther than when loaded. SHOCKING!!!

Note, however, that Blix in his Feb. 14 presentation said, unequivocally, that those missles are prohibited. Resolution 687 doesn't say one word about "fully loaded" missles. It just says that if they have a range of over 150km -- without qualification, so we must assume it is under any conditions, unless a subsequent resolution added qualification -- they are prohibited. Following the letter of the Resolution -- which it is Blix's job to do -- those missles are simply prohibited, and Iraq can either show the world, to some degree, that it is willing to comply with resolutions, or not. Right now.

Re:Missles

darobin on 2003-02-24T09:29:43

Yes, but I'm not surprised that, missing qualification, each party would interpret it its way. No need to stretch words, any proper missile tech sheet will give you range at min and max loads. Whoever specified 150km without adding "at max load" is sorrily incompetent.

Re:Missles

pudge on 2003-02-24T12:17:52

Whoever specified 150km without adding "at max load" is sorrily incompetent.

Why? Without qualification, it means "at min load" by default. We don't need to question how to interpret it. There's no room for equivocation. The wording is not unclear.

It's a simple boolean. Either it can exceed 150km, or it cannot. It can, by everyone's admission, including Iraq's. It is therefore proscribed, and Iraq must therefore destroy them, all their major related parts, and their repair and production facilities.

Re:Missiles

darobin on 2003-02-24T12:33:10

An unloaded missile is a civilian rocket :)

I'm well in favour of destroying iraqi missiles (in fact, any missile), it's just that the reaction of some that started shouting "LOOK LOOK THEY'RE CHEATING WE'VE GOT PROOF" when those came out was laughable, and betrays a will to go to war that goes beyond the hunt for WMDs.

Re:Missiles

pudge on 2003-02-24T12:50:10

Well, I don't have that reaction, so I can't really speak to it much, except to say that I agree with you, I think: I recognize these missiles are prohibited, clearly, by the letter of prevailing UN Resolutions; I do not, however, think that they substnatively change anything in regards to what is happening.

It is just one more example of Iraq not cooperating if they do not destroy them. If they do destroy them, they are still not cooperating in many significant ways (both Blix and El Baradei are still saying that Iraq is failing to provide evidence it is required to provide, and failing to allow them to conduct interviews they are required to allow). Unless all those other material breaches are turned around, these missiles will not be the hinge on which war turns. Even if Iraq complies to the UN's satisfaction in every way apart from these missiles, at that point destroying the missiles will not require war, because a couple of bombing runs will destroy them and end it all.

But make no mistake, these missiles do represent a very clear breach of prevailing UN Resolutions. The inspectors and their experts have agreed unanimously on this point (well, not that they are a breach, specifically, but that the weapons are prohibited). The text of the resolution leaves no logical room for equivocation. They are prohibited. It is not that war hinges on the missiles; it is just that this is a very clear example of a breach that people can point to, if they are not destroyed. It is easier for people to understand missiles than it is to understand interviews or missing evidence.

Note that the Bush administration has not used the missiles as you say, either. This weekend, they echoed pretty much the sentiment I described above, that I can tell.