The secret government marches on...

[Ken Brown]

"James A. Donald" wrote:


[...]

> You do not date it by the datestamp, you date it by the events
> to which Robert Fisk refers.
> 
> > Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here
> 
> I do not think you have read the article.
> 
> Here is Fisk's article http://tinyurl.com/995f
> 
> Here is the mainstream article http://tinyurl.com/9966
> 
> They contradict each other.  Therefore one or both is lying.
> Since we now have good cause to believe the mainstream article
> true, it follows that Robert Fisk is lying.

They really don't contradict each other.

Fisk's article implies that the journalists set off at 1400 Iraqi time -
that is 2300 New Zealand. The article is dated April 4th, so he is
presumably talking about the events of April 3rd - which is confirmed on
the copy of the same article at
http://robert-fisk.com/articles210.htm    He mentions dusk, so its a
fair bet he turned up in the late afternoon and left at nightfall (a
sensible thing to do in a place that gets regularly bombed)

The BBC reports on April 4th said the US took the airport "overnight"
i.e. evening of April 3rd to morning of 4th - that is after Fisk's
visit.  

The other article you refer to actually CONFIRMS Fisk's account:  

>During the day, the ministry organized a trip to the airport for reporters in the
>capital, and they filmed the empty runways and terminals. Yet within hours,
>artillery and rocket fire erupted in the region and military officials said an assault
>on Saddam International Airport had begun.
 
Exactly what Fisk wrote - the Ministry took the journalist to the
airport, there were no Americans there.  If there had been Americans
there earlier it was a small raid, not a major attack (hence the
reference to the Moscow trams) and they had gone away again (or maybe
were hiding). The big attack happened the night after these events.

The BBC website accounts of the day agree with this,  as do those on the
website of, for example, the Houston Chronicle (the first US paper whose
URL I remembered). They describe the attack on the airport as being
overnight, finishing on the morning of the 4th. The only mention of it
on the 3rd  I found is a quote from an interview with Rumsfeld: "He
refused to comment on reports that coalition forces had launched an
assault on Baghdad International Airport, about ten miles outside the
city."

Anyway Baghdad is a big city and this is NOT a war with rigid front
lines (one of the reasons the Iraqis managed to capture logistical
support staff). It is perfectly possible that someone could be 20 km
west from the city centre but not in visual contact with US ground units
only 15km from it, or that a small US reconnaissance force watching over
the airport from one direction could be invisible to journalists looking
at it from another.  I believe thos guys are quite good at not being
seen when they don't want to be.
 
Fisk is no friend of the US government - though from reading his stuff I
think he hates the Ba'athists and the other middle-east kleptocracies
even more, try reading
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp?story=76415 He
certainly puts a heavy spin on what he sees, but there is no actual
lying apparent in these article and no contradiction between them. 

The two articles you quote are really about different things - the US
paper is doing a roundup of the events of the day, with a gung-ho spin
on it; the main thrust of Fisk's piece is in fact about how the Iraqi
propaganda is widely disbelieved by Iraqis - using the absurd monuments
to the so-called victory against Iran as an image of the bombastic
rubbish the Ba'athist government spouted - and comparing it with two
pieces of US propaganda that he thinks were untrue.

The Americans are saying "we will inevitably win a glorious victory".

Fisk is saying "all governments are liars in wartime".

Both use the events of the same day to illustrate their different
points.

NB the Independent publishes most of Fisk's columns in their "Argument"
section, i.e. as opinion, not reportage.

> > Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by honest
> > mistakes; and journalists rarely have the full story at the
> > best of times.
> 
> Probably Fisk did not know where the American forces were, but
> he assured the reader, with great confidence, that he did know.

No he didn't, he assured his readers that he knew where they *weren't* -
that is right in front of him. Your rhetorical tricks are transparent.
Such as contrasting the phrase "Fisk's article" with "mainstream
article"  - implying that Fisk and his paper are not "mainstream", are
somehow marginal. Fisk mainly works for the London paper called the
Independent. I don't read it much but it is certainly "mainstream". It
is boring, somewhat staid, establishment-oriented broadsheet newspaper -
politically probably in around the same small-l-liberal-but-not-radical
place as the New York Times. It's mainly read by middle-aged
middle-class Londoners who can't stomach the Murdochised Times but don't
want to be seen reading the Guardian (which is much more entertaining
but is associated in their minds with social workers, teachers, and
flaky new-media types). Fisk's writing is one of the best things about
an otherwise often stodgy paper.

Your allegation that Fisk was in London at the time is defamatory. He's
one of the best-respected British reporters - an occupation,
incidentally, which has suffered a far higher casualty rate in this war
than the US military have - and has put himself in harm's way in several
previous wars. He worked at the Times for years - which is as
"mainstream" as journalism gets - and was their Belfast correspondent at
the height of the "troubles".

And he *is* a good writer - even if you disagree with him you have to
admit that his latest piece is worth reading:
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=395707 
The bit about Corporal Breeze from Michigan is a gem. Brings tears to
your eyes. If Fisk ever gives up watching Arabs getting shot at maybe he
could get a scriptwriting job for Steven Spielberg.