Enid Goldstein
  Democratic Talk Radio
  Erin Hart
  Meria Heller
  Guy James
  Joey Joe Joe Show!
  KBOO
  KPFA
  KPFK
  Mike Malloy
  John McMullen
  Shann Nix
  Radio Left
  Randi Rhodes
  John Rothmann
  Ski & Skinner
  Ray Taliaferro
  Bernie Ward
  WBAI
  Mike Webb
  Johnny Wendell
  Peter Werbe
  WMNF
  WKTS

WEB SITES

  AdBusters
  Alternet
  American Politics Journal
  American Prospect
  BartCop!
  BuzzFlash
  BushWatch
  Common Dreams
  Consortium News
  ConWebWatch
  Daily Howler
  Democrats.com
  Dem Underground
  FAIR
  From The Wilderness
  IndyMedia
  Liberal Resurgent
  Media Horse Online
  Media Channel
  Mother Jones
  Nation
  New Republic
  Onion
  Online Journal
  Political Strikes
  RackJite
  Ted Rall
  Tom Tomorrow
  Tom Paine
  Truthout
  Village Voice

Public's Pro-Inspections Posture Is Mostly M.I.A. on Talking-Heads TV:
Bookers' cynical reliance on Clinton aides to counter administration
perspective results in appearance, not reality, of balance

TBTM Commentary by Dennis Hans

The latest CBS poll says 62 percent of Americans think Hans Blix and
Mohammed ElBaradei are on to something with these inspections. Give the
dynamic duo more time, say the 62 percent. If Saddam is hiding WMD,
let’s find those weapons and destroy them. If Blix and ElBaradei can
certify in a few months that Iraq is “WMD free,” even better, as
there’ll be no need to go to war to achieve President Bush’s stated goal
of disarming Saddam.

Boy, are those 62 percent out of touch with America’s tough-talking
talking heads. The latter, with few exceptions, were bummed out by Blix
and ElBaradei’s Feb. 14 report, which the talking heads’ feared would
slow down the rush to war.

One reason for the near-unanimity of talking-head opinion is that
TV-show “bookers” often turn to a veteran of Bill Clinton’s
foreign-policy team for an “alternative” perspective from the Bush
administration. Makes sense, right? Bring on someone who supports the
Republican president, and counter him or her with a former official of
the recent Democratic administration.

But remember, Clinton is a self-described “new Democrat,” positioned
halfway between Republicans and “old Democrats” like Ted Kennedy and
John Conyers. As president, he was moderately liberal on some domestic
issues but leaned right on international issues. His domestic team
included genuine liberals such as Robert Reich and Peter Edelman (both
of whom grew weary of losing policy battles with administration
conservatives), while his foreign-policy players ranged from
establishment centrists and conservatives to hard-right ideologues.
Here, in broad terms, are the Iraq-policy positions of the Clinton
veterans who appear regularly on TV:

Unilateral superhawks: CIA director James Woolsey, drug czar and former
SouthCom commander General Barry McCaffrey, Dr. Laurie Mylroie.

More-the-merrier multilateral hawks (Let’s at least try to get the U.N.
on our side, even though we already have all the authorization we need.
If the U.N. climbs on board, great. If not, let’s attack anyway, as a
“coalition of the willing.”): Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and
her deputy, Jamie Rubin; National Security Advisor Sandy Berger and his
deputy, P.J. Crowley; U.N. Ambassadors Bill Richardson and Richard
Holbrooke, Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, NSC official Philip Bobbitt,
CIA analyst Ken Pollack.

Smooth-feathered multilateral hawks (same basic view as the multilateral
hawks in a kinder, gentler package): Clinton, Vice President Al Gore,
Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Michael O’Hanlon, Nancy Soderberg,
Ivo Daalder.

Those who see diplomacy as a means of peacefully resolving the Iraq
crisis, rather than as a means to bully and bribe other nations to
support a military solution: Nobody.

You hear that, bookers? Nobody.

As far as I know, the only high-profile Clinton veteran who’s in synch
with the thinking of the great majority of the world’s citizens on Iraq
is Paul Begala, the CNN “Crossfire” host who was a communications
adviser in the Clinton White House and not part of the foreign-policy
loop. Begala regularly reminds viewers that military “containment” of
Iraq has worked like a charm for 12 years, and with beefed-up
inspections can work indefinitely. He rightly argues that the War on
Terrorism -- i.e., on al Qaeda and the unmentionable Osama — is
unrelated to Iraq and should be Priority Number One.

Getting back to the Clinton foreign-policy veterans, none sought to slow
the rush to war by poking holes in Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation.
All gave him rave reviews.

Three weeks later, Powell stands exposed the world over as a charlatan,
his presentation a tissue of lies built on a discredited British
dossier, photos that prove nothing, and the testimony of tortured
captives and dishonest defectors. Powell hammered the final nail in his
own credibility coffin when he misrepresented the latest Osama tape as
proving a “partnership” between Osama and Saddam. Yet among Clinton and
his aides, Powell still commands respect.

Consider the Clinton interpretation of U.N. Resolution 1441. While
nearly all of our allies see a two-step process in the event of
“material breach,” Clinton and his aides toe the Bush party line that
1441, together with previous resolutions, grants the U.S. all the
authority it needs to invade Iraq without a follow-up resolution (though
they say it’s in our own and Tony Blair’s interest to try to get one).
“Old Europe” insists there’s no “automaticity” in 1441; the “new
Democrats,” siding with Rummy on this question, say there is.

TV bookers who truly want to present a range of views representative of
the public’s thinking — rather than merely the appearance of balance —
should, when presenting Clinton veterans, assign them a pro-war seat.
If it’s a four-way debate, the Clintonian could join a Bush spokesperson
against two articulate anti-war voices — one liberal or progressive, the
other moderate or conservative.

Who should those voices be? Obviously, they should not be actors —
unless it’s a debate of actors vs. actors. I greatly admire Janeane
Garafolo, Susan Sarandon and Mike Farrell. They are informed,
articulate and couch their arguments in language that hits home with
regular folk. It is certainly not their fault that bookers turn to
them, and so long as it’s a choice of no antiwar voice on the air or a
celebrity voice, I’ll go with the celebrity every time. But one doesn’t
see Charlton Heston, Tom Selleck or Lee Greenwood displacing Powell,
Rumsfeld and Rice as the pro-war voices on Sunday morning.

Bookers should select administration opponents from the large pool of
war foes with long-term expertise, whose think-tank, academic, media or
diplomatic credentials should be announced by the moderator and appear
on screen under their name. “Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy
Studies, author of…, frequent commentator on the BBC…” carries greater
weight with undecided viewers than “Susan Sarandon, mother, concerned
citizen, star of “Thelma and Louise.” (Of course, cynics will argue
that this is precisely why certain shows seek out actors. For
documentation on the pro-war bias on talking-heads TV, see my essay “The
White Hawk Club”: http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15068.)

Some of the experts I have in mind do get on the air occasionally, but
not nearly as often as their expertise and ability merit; others are all
but excluded. Conservatives include Scott Ritter and Rep. Ron Paul.
Centrists include Edward Peck, Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Matthews,
George Lopez and General Anthony Zinni. Liberals and progressives
include Bennis, Glen Rangwala, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Rashid Khalidi,
Hussein Ibish, Stephen Zunes, Noam Chomsky, Rahul Mahajan, As’ad
AbuKhalil, Alistair Millar, Ali Abunimah and Representatives Sheila
Jackson Lee and Dennis Kucinich. Journalists include Robert Scheer,
Robert Fisk, Norman Solomon and Reese Ehrlich (the latter two are
co-authors of “Target Iraq”). There are many other articulate voices in
each grouping.

Two personal favorites are Rangwala and Peck. Rangwala is a Middle East
specialist at Cambridge University who works with Labor Party foes of
Tony Blair and whose writings, including devastating analyses of
Powell’s U.N. presentation, are available at
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/writings.html. Peck, a former
ambassador to Iraq, is an “old-school diplomat” who sees diplomacy as a
means — get this — of resolving conflicts peacefully!

Returning once more to Clinton, he was, in my view, a fine president in
many respects. Given the choices, I’m glad I voted for him twice, and I
sure wish Gore (who also got my vote) were in the White House today.
But the makeup of Clinton’s foreign-policy team, whose members now man
the talking-heads front line, has helped to push the range of
respectable thought on issues of war and peace so far to the right that
the “give inspections a chance” view of a majority of Americans is
advocated by a handful of bright, articulate, courageous actors and
hardly anyone else.

It’s up to the bookers, producers and hosts at Meet the Press and all
the other chat shows to immediately rectify this unacceptable situation
-- or stand exposed as willing participants in a cynical charade.

Previous Dennis Hans Commentary:
- With 'Liberals' Like These, Who Needs Conservatives
- I'm Calling You Out!
- Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His 'Techniques of Deceit'

Dennis Hans is a freelance writer who has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. You can read his essay "Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His 'Techniques of Deceit'" at these sites: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm; http://www.takebackthemedia.com/com-hans.html. He can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu