Media’s Conveniently Changing View of Zarqawi

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Media’s Conveniently Changing View of Zarqawi

 

If Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all of al Qaeda’s leaders in Iraq and throughout the world laid down their arms and surrendered to American forces, would the media report it as good news? Judging from the press’s reaction to the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq by the American military last week, the answer appears to be no.

In fact, this tepid response to the death of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq – a man who has at times in the past couple of years been depicted by the press as more vital to this terrorist network than the currently in-hiding bin Laden – suggests quite disturbingly that America’s media are fighting a different war than America’s soldiers.

According to NewsBusters,  CNN’s senior editor for Arab affairs Octavia Nasr said the following about Zarqawi’s death on “American Morning” Thursday:

"Some people say it will enrage the insurgency, others say it will hurt it pretty bad. But if you think about the different groups in Iraq, you have to think that Zarqawi's death is not going to be a big deal for them."

However, CNN didn’t always feel that Zarqawi’s death or capture would be so inconsequential. Just days after Saddam Hussein was found in his spider hole, Paula Zahn brought CNN national correspondent Mike Boettcher on to discuss a new threat in Iraq. Zahn began the December 15, 2003 segment:

“The capture of Saddam Hussein may lead to renewed attention on the search for Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, and next to bin Laden, there is one man emerging as a major threat. He is believed to be the leader of a group much like al Qaeda, and the U.S. wants to catch him before he strikes again.”

Boettcher entered the discussion:

“The reward for his capture is only a fifth of that offered for Saddam Hussein, $5 million to Saddam's $25 million, but abu-Mus'ab al- Zarqawi, say Middle East intelligence analysts, is emerging as the most dangerous terrorist conducting operations in Iraq, the surrounding region, and perhaps the world.”

Subsequent to this report, Zarqawi’s reward was raised to $25 million, meaning that the importance of his capture increased fivefold. Mysteriously, CNN didn’t see it that way, as in its view, the death of what it once described as “the most dangerous terrorist” in “perhaps the world” somehow became “no big deal.”

At roughly the same time as Nasr was downplaying Zarqawi’s death on CNN, ABC’s Diane Sawyer invited perennial Bush-basher Richard Clarke on “Good Morning America” to solicit his opinion on the subject. As reported by NewsBusters, Sawyer asked, “[is] it any safer in Iraq and will the war end any sooner?" Clarke responded:

“Well, unfortunately the answer is no. This man was a terrible man. He was a symbol of terrorism. He was the face of terrorism, the only real name we knew of an insurgent leader in Iraq. But he commanded only a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. And so, unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference."

Sawyer incredulously concluded the segment:

"So for overall terrorism against the U.S., it's, again, not a major effect."

Yet, on November 21, 2005, Sawyer and the “Good Morning America” team weren’t so blasé about capturing or killing Zarqawi. Quite the contrary, Sawyer began her report that morning:

“Right now intelligence officials are pouring over information trying to decide if it's possible that public enemy number one in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, has, in fact, been killed over the weekend. ABC's chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross tells us what he learned.”

Ross answered:

“If it's true it'd be major victory for the US in Iraq.”

This raises a rather obvious question: how could what would have been a “major victory” if it had occurred in November 2005 not have “a major effect” when it actually transpires less than seven months later?

Regardless of the answer, it wasn’t just the morning shows experiencing a convenient change of heart towards Zarqawi. A drastically similar conversion occurred on the CBS “Evening News” Thursday. And, in this instance, it took less than five weeks for the story to change.

Anchor Bob Schieffer invited former CIA member and current CBS News analyst Michael Scheuer on to discuss Zarqawi’s death. Schieffer began the interview:

“Michael, I want to ask you, it's my understanding you believe this might actually increase danger for US troops.”

Yes, you read that right: on a day when America should have been celebrating the death of one of her greatest enemies, a top CBS anchorman actually brought on a guest to discuss how this might “increase danger for US troops.” Scheuer conveniently responded:

“I think that's probably the case, Bob.”

Schieffer then asked his guest what the significance of Zarqawi’s death was. Scheuer answered:

“Strategically it's not very important.”

Yet, the “Evening News” didn’t always feel that Zarqawi’s death or capture would “increase the danger for US troops” or be strategically “not very important.” Less than five weeks earlier, the “Evening News” did an entire story called “Task Force 145 leads hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Schieffer began that May 2 segment:

“The toll of American military people killed in Iraq reached 2,400 today, with the death of another American soldier killed by a roadside bomb. That news came as our David Martin learned more details of an intense new campaign that American troops have launched to track down top al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.”

Schieffer then handed it off to Martin, who winded the segment down by saying, “Getting Zarqawi would be a major victory,” and concluded:

“If or when the end comes, he will almost certainly be replaced by another terrorist, but it is unlikely his replacement will be the equal of Zarqawi.”

As such, it is infinitely clear that the media’s view of Zarqawi changed virtually the moment he was killed. In fact, their response to what they had presaged in the past would be great news if it happened was instead designed to dampen the public’s enthusiasm for the event, while at the same time diminish any positive the Bush administration could gain from it here at home.

Sadly, such behavior is yet another example of a press clearly acting in its own best interests without regard for that of the American people much in the same way as the politicians they revere. 

After all, it has been suggested for many years that members of America’s two major parties base policy decisions almost exclusively on a calculus for re-election and not on what actually would be beneficial to the public they serve. Many experts believe that such strategic planning begins almost immediately after Election Day, and dictates every move these politicians make until the next important first Tuesday in November.

With disturbing similarity, the atrocious behavior of the drive-by media makes it quite apparent that the same can be said of most press representatives today. Since at least the year 2000, it seems virtually every mainstream report of a current event has been meticulously crafted to further the goals of politicians favored by the media, while acting to thwart the efforts of those whose views are considered to be unacceptable by these supposedly enlightened journalists regardless of what position of power or responsibility they hold.

For those that question this conclusion, just imagine all the terrorists and their leaders in Iraq laying down their arms and declaring a truce with the new Iraqi government as the American media question whether this will be good for peace in the region.

Link

[DKW 86 7,425]

Is this not the typical media response? Why is ANYONE surprised in all this. You know the troops arent surprised at all. Any watching the 2004 election and seeing the whole ludicrous RATHERGATE episode where Dan Rather came and denied the 100% obvious.

The press hates Conservative American values and will do anything to go contrary to any of thse values.

The soldiers over there were getting beat up with the carrot and stick before they got Zarqawi. After they did, they were told they hadnt really accomplished anything. This is just like some sad sordid soap opera where the rules get changed on our folks whether they do good or bad, it will always be portrayed as bad.

[Tigermike 3,034]

Along the same line.

Making Victory Rhyme with Defeat

The media myths of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

by Richard Miniter & Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

06/20/2006 12:00:00 AM

FROM NEWSWEEK to the New York Daily News, nearly every major media outlet has fallen for at least one of the three major myths concerning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi: that he was an "American creation"; that he was not a unique warlord but was easily replaceable; or that American soldiers allegedly committed atrocities against a dying Zarqawi. These myths should be destroyed before they take root.

(1) The U.S. "created" Zarqawi by giving him prominence in public pronouncements. The day after Zarqawi's death, London's Daily Mail noted: "The great irony of the rise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is that it was the United States who helped make him so infamous. . . . [T]hanks to the West's desire to put a face to an ideology they could not understand, his name was automatically linked to almost every outrage perpetrated in Iraq."

This theme was also sounded in the American press. Newsweek found, "Zarqawi's infamy was, at least to some degree, a creation of the U.S. government, whose spokesmen seized on him as the visible face of Al Qaeda in Iraq--and living proof that the war in Iraq was the main battlefield in the grander global war on terror."

But Zarqawi was a figure the U.S. government stumbled upon, rather than raised up. A lone State Department official noticed an NSA intercept of a phone call from Zarqawi, who was in Iraq, to one of the assassins of USAID diplomat Lawrence Foley. (Foley was murdered in his driveway in Amman, Jordan in 2002). Zarqawi was congratulating the killer. The official, whom we have interviewed, said he then began to wonder who Zarqawi was. (The NSA wasn't tracking Zarqawi at the time, but was tracing those who phoned the assassins to find out if there was a new group targeting diplomats. There was: Zarqawi's.) Then he noticed that Zarqawi was an al Qaeda operative and that he made the phone call from Iraq--more than a year before the Iraq war began.

The point is that Zarqawi, based in Iraq, had ordered the death of U.S. officials while he was essentially unknown to the American intelligence community. The State Department official forwarded the NSA intercept to a number of others at State and Defense. Later, he learned that his email was used by senior Defense Department officials to champion the idea that Zarqawi deserved a prominent place in U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. address.

Following the Powell speech, Zarqawi was all but forgotten by U.S. officials. Ambassador Paul L. Bremer's exhaustive memoir My Year in Iraq contains only nine stray references to Zarqawi, and virtually all of them are merely citations of news reports. During a discussion with Bremer about the insurgency in November 2003, he talked extensively about Syrian and Iranian involvement, but did not mention Zarqawi.

It was Zarqawi's repeated and spectacular attacks against allied forces in Iraq, culminating in his May 2004 beheading of Nicholas Berg, that seized the Bush administration's attention.

Rewarded with the media spotlight, Zarqawi committed more atrocities, beheading Eugene Armstrong and Ken Bigley. If anything, it was the American media's sustained coverage of Zarqawi's butchery that made him an international figure--not the Bush administration.

(2) Killing Zarqawi didn't really accomplish anything; it's like cutting the head off a hydra. Former Clinton counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, author of Against All Enemies, recently argued that it was a "myth" that Zarqawi's death would significantly set back the insurgency: "Remember, we were also told that the death of Uday and Qusay Hussein would weaken the insurgency. When Saddam was captured, many speculated that his arrest would diminish the fighting. Almost exactly one year ago, Cheney said that the insurgency was 'in the last throes.' Since those events and statements, the rate of insurgent attacks and the casualties from those attacks have steadily increased and are now at an all-time high."

But unlike virtually every other figure in Iraq today, Zarqawi was a genuine icon. He was celebrated in Arabic-language pop songs and enjoyed friendly references in Arab soap operas. His signature black skullcap was offered for sale in the streets of Cairo, Khartoum, and elsewhere as "the Zarqawi" by vendors. His powerful image gave him two special advantages: the ability to raise vast sums of money from Saudi and Gulf Arabs, and the mystique to entreat recruits for suicide bombings from across the Arab world. (Intelligence analysts who track the online obituaries of suicide bombers in Iraq have found that more than 60 percent of them are Saudi.)

At least in the short run, it is hard to imagine Abu Hamza al-Muhajir or any other successor enjoying the same cultural, financial, or recruiting advantages.

(3) Zarqawi was beaten to death by American troops. Shortly after Zarqawi's death, an Iraqi man identified only as Mohammed told the Associated Press that he saw Zarqawi being beaten by the Americans: "When the Americans arrived they took him out of the ambulance, they beat him on his stomach and wrapped his head with his dishdasha, then they stomped on his stomach and his chest until he died and blood came out of his nose." Another purported witness stated that soldiers kicked the wounded man's chest until he grew pale, his mouth began bleeding, and he died.

In a definitive Washington Post account drawn from an array of U.S. officials and other authoritative sources, there is no mention of an ambulance. Nor does the notion that U.S. soldiers would stop an ambulance and remove Zarqawi in order to beat him to death seem plausible.

It does no one any service to pretend that Zarqawi was a minor figure or one that he is easily replaced. His death alone will not end any of the three insurgencies now besetting allied forces in Iraq, but his demise is still a milestone.

Richard Miniter is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, Losing bin Laden and Shadow War. Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is a senior consultant for the Gerard Group International LLC. His first book, My Year Inside Radical Islam, will be published in Winter 2007 by Tarcher/Penguin.

link

[japantiger 4,051]

I said this in another post:

The press are the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the world. They are an instituion that derives legitimacy and their very existence from Western Democracies, and then turn around and try to undermine those democracies at every chance they get.

Where is the outrage over this statement with the latest deaths in Iraq?

"We announce the good news to our Islamic nation that we executed God's will and slaughtered the two crusader animals we had in captivity," said the claim, reportedly from the Mujahedeen Shura Council, a group linked to al Qaeda.

The people are animals and need to be removed from the planet.....and the press should be saying that!

They also do not hold the enemies of these democracies to the same standard. Where is the outrage over murder and genocide in the Muslim world and in Iraq? Zarqawi was systematically murdering rival Muslim groups and protecting his own just like Hitler did with the Jews.....they would take people off of a bus; separate between Suni and Shiite and then commit murder against only one of the groups......

Where is the outrage over denying women basic human rights? "Honor" murders are permitted to protect the reputation of families when a woman is raped; that's right, the women is not protected...she is murdered to protect the reputation of the men in the family...women are denied education, health care...the list goes on..........

The free press should be fighting tooth and nail for what we are doing in Iraq since it furthers the institution that actually makes them possible.....they should be educating the world that these people are the enemies of freedom and all that the "press" should hold dear. There is no free press in the Muslim world......