The Art of Lying by Omission
Hugh Hewitt has a great catch: an article by the L.A. Times discussing the puzzing question of why Moammar Kadafi gave up his WMD. The heart of the article says:
Officials still disagree about exactly why Kadafi gave up the programs. Some information supports President Bush’s contention that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the broader U.S. doctrine of pre-emptive strikes forced the Libyan leader to act.
But several British and U.S. officials said Kadafi had been trying for years to surrender the weapons to end the international sanctions crippling the Libyan economy and smooth the way for his eldest son’s eventual assumption of power.
The article leaves little doubt that editors subscribe to the latter theory. Kadafi’s son is quoted as saying Iraq had nothing to do with it:
Seif Islam Kadafi told CBS News last year that U.S. pressure was not behind his father’s decision.
“First of all, we started negotiating before the beginning of the war,” he said. “And it’s not because we are afraid or under American pressure or blackmail.”
But the article does not mention that Kadafi himself reportedly admitted to Silvio Berlusconi that the Iraq war was the proximate cause of the decision to disarm:
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi made it clear that his decision to disarm was prompted by Operation Iraqi Freedom.
“I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid,” Mr. Gadhafi told Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, according to a Berlusconi spokesman who was quoted in yesterday’s Telegraph of London.
What do you think? Is that slightly relevant to the article?
P.S. Can we get a final ruling on how to spell this dude’s name? I’ve seen “Khadafy,” “Qaddafi,” “Kadafi,” “Gadhafi,” and even “Xrlq.” None of these is right, exactly — so just pick one and stick with it.
What really is the benefit of one of these regimes having WMD’s other than the benefit of giving them up. Its not like they ever are gonna get to use them. At least not against any white people.
actus (ebc508) — 3/14/2005 @ 12:43 pmThere are several organizations which would like to blow up a nuke in the US anonymously. With no one claiming credit, the US can’t retaliate very well.
Anyone else disturbed at this recent report about Israel “plans” to attack Iran’s nuclear installations? These newspapers use this trick over and over again. They promote the simple task of documenting all possible military scenarios to the implication that some written “plan” is imminent, or an ongoing operation. Horror, they are planning to attack!
In this case, LA Times uses the cover of London’s Sunday Times having discovered the existance of a plan in Israel about attacking Iran. That’s all they need to get them started.
By reporting this fictitious Israel operation, LAT is basically telling Iran that they better use their nukes as soon as possible, before Israel swoops in and destroys them. If anything horrific happens, these cosmo-sipping LAT reporters will pat each other’s backs telling us “We told you so, you should have listened to us about this Israel/Iran thing.” Neat.
Why doesn’t the LAT report that the US is planning to attack Mexico, since the US certainly has a “plan” somewhere describing where tanks go if we were to do that.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 3/14/2005 @ 1:32 pmI know you will find this hard to believe but the LAT has been buring facts that do not support is “party line” ever since the Big O took over almost 45 years ago. Their editors are the most stingent censors outside of Cuba in the world. Nothing gets into the paper that contradicts their line unless it is burried on p25 with a 0.125 inch headline. And that happens once in a blue moon.
Rod Stanton (da951e) — 3/14/2005 @ 2:30 pmThe main obstruction to standardizing this dudes name is that it is an Arabic name. It is very difficult to transliterate into English names from Arabic because 1. so many of Arabic’s sounds have no equivalent in English, 2. grammarians have arrived at no agreement upon transliteration schemes (a genuine authority could probably be pointed to for each of the spellings that you list, er, except the last). For this reason one may find Usama/Osama bin Laden/bin Ladin in standard news sources. Only Saddam Hussein’s name seems to have been standardized, even though the English spelling of lesser known persons, whose last names are spelled identically with Saddam’s in Arabic, have been routinely spelled Husseyn. In short, don’t hold your breath.
Craig R. Harmon (c0771d) — 3/14/2005 @ 6:02 pmFinally Kadafi tried real hard?
J. Peden (ffccb8) — 3/14/2005 @ 6:52 pm“There are several organizations which would like to blow up a nuke in the US anonymously. ”
I’m talking about states that make poison gasses. They seem more trouble than they’re worth. Or actually, they seem to be worth more in giving them up than in using them.
actus (e8ffe9) — 3/15/2005 @ 5:28 am