{"id":66116,"date":"2004-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-11-02T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/02\/la-presse-us-et-les-explosifs-irakiens-disparus\/"},"modified":"2004-11-02T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2004-11-02T00:00:00","slug":"la-presse-us-et-les-explosifs-irakiens-disparus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2004\/11\/02\/la-presse-us-et-les-explosifs-irakiens-disparus\/","title":{"rendered":"La presse US et les explosifs irakiens disparus<\/em><\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

La presse US et les explosifs irakiens disparus<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tUn des sujets pol\u00e9miques de la campagne \u00e9lectorale a \u00e9t\u00e9 la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation qu’un d\u00e9p\u00f4t irakien de plus de 300 tonnes d’explosifs \u00e0 tr\u00e8s haute intensit\u00e9 avait \u00e9t\u00e9 laiss\u00e9 sans surveillance par l’arm\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, permettant le vol de ces explosifs sans doute par des organisations terroristes. Cette affaire a \u00e9t\u00e9 largement d\u00e9battue dans la presse, avec, \u00e0 nouveau, pol\u00e9miques, manipulations, etc.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tL’organisation FAIR, sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9e dans l’\u00e9tude et l’analyse des m\u00e9dias, examine la fa\u00e7on dont la presse US a rendu compte de cette affaire. C’est un cas de plus de manipulation de l’information, permettant de rendre compte des m\u00e9thodes et des comportements \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tCi-dessous, le texte de FAIR.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Missing the Evidence on Missing Explosives<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tBy FAIR, October 29, 2004<\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhen the New York Times reported on Monday (10\/25\/04) that over 300 tons<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof high-explosive materials appeared to be missing from an Iraqi weapons<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfacility, it was no surprise that the Bush administration and conservative<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpundits would quickly challenge the story. But recent reporting has taken<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthis spin as proof that the facts of the story are in dispute– even<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthough new evidence disproves the administration’s rebuttals.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn October 28, ABC affiliate KSTP released footage that was shot by its<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tembedded reporters on April 18, 2003, showing members of the 101st<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAirborne Division searching the Al Qaqaa bunkers. Clearly visible on the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\ttape are containers marked with labels that indicate the barrels contained<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe high explosives in question. ABC World News Tonight broadcast the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfootage on October 28, noting that soldiers opened the bunkers that had<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbeen sealed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), discovered<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe high explosives, and then left those bunkers open and unguarded. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tGiven that the tape was shot nine days after the fall of Baghdad, it would<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tappear to prove that at least some of these explosives were looted after<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe U.S. invasion– a scenario that is consistent with statements from<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIraqi officials and witnesses to the looting (Agence France Presse,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t10\/27\/04; New York Times, 10\/28\/04). As ABC’s Martha Raddatz put it, \u00a0\u00bbIt<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tis the strongest evidence to date the explosives disappeared after the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tU.S. had taken control of Iraq.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tOn the other hand, on the same day the Pentagon released satellite images<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat they claim show vehicles near some of the bunkers at the Al Qaqaa<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsite on March 17, 2003. That would seem to be an attempt to bolster the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tadministration’s claim that the explosives were removed by Saddam Hussein<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tprior to the U.S. invasion, though there is no evidence that the trucks<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdid anything at all with the explosives in question. Indeed, the fact<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthat trucks were in the vicinity of bunkers that contained large amounts<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tof battlefield weapons (in addition to the high explosives) just before a<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\twar seems hardly newsworthy. Certainly the presence of trucks near the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbunkers does nothing to undermine the footage of explosives in the bunkers<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdays later.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBut despite their dubious relevance, the Pentagon images– along with the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWhite House’s continued criticism of Kerry for bringing up the issue at<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tall– seemed to leave some news outlets uncertain about the facts. A<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsubhead above a Los Angeles Times story read, \u00a0\u00bbReporters Taped Troops<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tApparently Finding Munitions. A Pentagon Photo Implies Otherwise.\u00a0\u00bb The<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tactual article, however, noted that the Pentagon photo implied very<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tlittle: \u00a0\u00bbThe photograph reveals little about the fate of the 377 tons of<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texplosives, part of an estimated 600,000 tons of explosives believed to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thave been scattered throughout Iraq at the time.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tAnd even though ABC’s network newscast had broadcast the KSTP footage,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tABC’s Ted Koppel reached a very different conclusion on the Nightline<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbroadcast later that evening (10\/28\/04). Koppel explained that \u00a0\u00bba friend\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin the military had reminded him that he was actually at Al Qaqaa during<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe war, and that \u00a0\u00bbmy friend, the senior military commander, believes that<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe explosives had already been removed by Saddam’s forces before we ever<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tgot there. The Iraqis, he said, were convinced that the U.S. was going to<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbomb the place.\u00a0\u00bb For some reason, the theory advanced by his military<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfriend was apparently more credible to Koppel than the television footage<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tABC had aired hours earlier that debunked his thesis.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tInstead of reporting on this newly discovered footage from Al Qaqaa, the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tWashington Post (10\/29\/04) pursued a different angle: \u00a0\u00bbThis week’s<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tassertions by Sen. John F. Kerry’s campaign about the few hundred tons<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsaid to have vanished from Iraq’s Qaqaa facility have struck some defense<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texperts as exaggerated.\u00a0\u00bb The story’s point, that the invasion allowed<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tvast quantities of weapons to be looted all over Iraq, would hardly seem<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto undermine Kerry’s critique of the Bush administration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIgnoring the evidence released the day before that explosives were on site<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tafter the fall of Baghdad, the Post instead reported that \u00a0\u00bbPentagon<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tofficials, reconstructing a timeline of what might have occurred at Qaqaa,<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tbelieve they have narrowed the window for the disappearance to a two-month<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tperiod between mid-March 2003, when the IAEA verified its seals were still<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tin place, and May 2003, when U.S. military search teams arrived at the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tsite and found it had been looted, stripped and vandalized.\u00a0\u00bb If the Post<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\thad reported on the KSTP footage, though, the paper would have been able<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto shut much of the Pentagon’s \u00a0\u00bbwindow.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tNot surprisingly, Fox News Channel continued to aggressively challenge the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\texplosives story, even after the KSTP footage surfaced. On Special Report<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t(10\/28\/04), anchor Brit Hume told viewers that \u00a0\u00bbofficials cite further<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tevidence the material had been moved before U.S. troops arrived\u00a0\u00bb–<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tapparently a reference to the inconclusive Pentagon satellite images. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tSpecial Report did not even mention the KSTP footage. But Fox campaign<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\treporter Carl Cameron claimed that the news of the day was damaging to the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tKerry campaign, since \u00a0\u00bbthe Iraqi explosives may have disappeared before<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe invasion, undercutting Kerry’s attack on the president.\u00a0\u00bb Cameron<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tadded, \u00a0\u00bbThe Democrat hoped the explosive story would be explosive. But the<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpresident is already calling it a dud, accusing Kerry of saying anything<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tto get elected.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThe Los Angeles Times followed a similar tack with an article (10\/29\/04)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\theadlined \u00a0\u00bbMunitions Issue Cuts Both Ways.\u00a0\u00bb The only evidence the paper<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tfound to support the idea that the issue would be harmful to Kerry were<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tthe claims of White House strategist Karl Rove, Bush communications<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tdirector Nicolle Devenish and George W. Bush.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tThat the subject of a scandal gets to decide how important it is is an odd<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tnotion– but many journalists seemed to put more faith in administration<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tpronouncements than in videotaped evidence.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\t[Notre recommandation est que ce texte doit \u00eatre lu avec la mention classique \u00e0 l’esprit, Disclaimer: In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only..]<\/em><\/strong> <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

La presse US et les explosifs irakiens disparus Un des sujets pol\u00e9miques de la campagne \u00e9lectorale a \u00e9t\u00e9 la r\u00e9v\u00e9lation qu’un d\u00e9p\u00f4t irakien de plus de 300 tonnes d’explosifs \u00e0 tr\u00e8s haute intensit\u00e9 avait \u00e9t\u00e9 laiss\u00e9 sans surveillance par l’arm\u00e9e am\u00e9ricaine, permettant le vol de ces explosifs sans doute par des organisations terroristes. Cette affaire… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66116","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-faits-et-commentaires"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66116","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66116"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66116\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66116"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66116"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66116"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}