Two recent reports on ABC raised the possibility that 10-year-old tapes of Saddam Hussein might show that he “did hide weapons of mass destruction”–giving the White House’s rationale for the March 2003 invasion a boost.
But as a February 17 FAIR action alert pointed out, ABC‘s reporting omitted evidence that undermined this argument. The tapes seem to show Hussein Kamel, Iraq’s weapons chief at the time, talking about information about weapons programs that Iraq had concealed from U.N. inspectors. But when Kamel defected–soon after these tapes were recorded–he not only told CIA and U.N. investigators about this concealment, he at the same time insisted that Iraq had destroyed all its unconventional weapons stockpiles. FAIR’s alert questioned why ABC failed to inform its viewers about this key information.
Responding to a query from FAIR about whether ABC was aware of the Kamel story, ABC reporter Brian Ross wrote:
“Completely aware of it of course. We felt the tapes stand for themselves.”
This admission is puzzling, to say the least. How could a news outlet raise the possibility that Kamel’s comments on the tapes could bolster the argument that Iraq had hidden weapons of mass destruction, and not mention that he had repeatedly told the U.S. and U.N. that Iraq had destroyed all of those weapons?
And far from letting the tapes stand for themselves, ABC provided comments from sources to help viewers interpret Kamel’s recorded remarks–even though, in light of Kamel’s later statements, some of those comments seem to be inaccurate. For example, ABC viewers heard from Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who said, based on the tapes, “You would think that it’s pretty likely that there were WMD that were hidden or that were moved out of the country.” If ABC knew about Kamel’s later insistence that Iraq destroyed its WMDs, that means the network had compelling information to suggest that Hoekstra’s interpretation was wrong.
Instead of reporting that, ABC‘s Nightline segment concluded that the tapes might “help both sides bolster their arguments.” It’s difficult to have any kind of rational argument when crucial information is kept out of the discussion.
