Read Senior Editor Laura Washington's 8 reasons to make a tax-deductible donation to In These Times.
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > May 28, 2003

Isnt That Special

By Joel Bleifuss

‘They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with—to the point of being bizarre.’

France has charged that U.S. media are publishing misinformation received from anonymous Bush administration officials who are orchestrating a “disinformation campaign aimed at sullying France’s image and misleading the public.”

If the charges are true—and, based on the documentation provided by the French government, they appear to be—the White House is engaged in a domestic covert operation to pervert American public opinion. Such campaigns are illegal under the laws governing U.S. intelligence agencies.

In a May 15 letter to members of Congress, the Bush administration and the U.S. media, French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte draws attention to eight reports that appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, MSNBC and Newsweek ([url=http://www.info-france-usa.org]http://www.info-france-usa.org[/url]). The stories range from France’s harboring secret supplies of smallpox, to France’s providing false passports to help Iraqi leaders escape capture by U.S. forces, to France’s selling Iraq switches that could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb.

As if to confirm such suspicions, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, when asked about the ambassador’s letter, said ominously, “France has historically had a very close relationship with Iraq. My understanding is that it continued right up until the outbreak of the war. What took place thereafter, we’ll find out.” (Just like we’ll find out about those weapons of mass destruction.)

An explanation of the thinking that led the administration to target France can be found in the May 5 New Yorker. Seymour Hersh writes that operating out of the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans is a group of eight or nine policy advisers and analysts who call themselves “the Cabal.” (Webster’s defines cabal as “a small group of secret plotters, as against a government or person in authority.”) According to Hersh, the Office of Special Plans, an intelligence unit that was the post-9/11 brainchild of Paul Wolfowitz, has beaten out its rivals (the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency) and captured the president’s ear.

In an interview with the London Observer, Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA chief of counter terrorism, was disdainful of the Cabal’s tactics: “Their methods are vicious. The politicisation of intelligence is pandemic, and deliberate disinformation is being promoted.” Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, was more diplomatic: “Rumsfeld set up his own intelligence agency because he didn’t like the intelligence he was getting.”

And Hersh reported that a former Bush administration intelligence official who resigned had this to say about the Cabal: “They didn’t like the intelligence they were getting, so they brought in people to write the stuff. They were so crazed and so far out and so difficult to reason with—to the point of being bizarre. Dogmatic, as if they were on a mission from God.”

Cabal members are bound together in their worship of Leo Strauss, a University of Chicago political science professor who served as the dissertation advisor of Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, director of the Office of Special Plans. As Hersh puts it, Strauss believed “that the works of ancient philosophers contain deliberately concealed esoteric meanings whose truths can be comprehended only by a very few.” Indeed, Shulsky once wrote that the Straussian idea of concealed meanings “alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is an exception.”

But in a constitutional democracy, where does government deception end and criminality begin? The Cabal has crossed that line. Administration officials knowingly circulated false information in pursuit of their hidden policy objectives. No democracy can function if citizens are lied to and denied basic information about the public issues that will affect their lives and those of their children.

The Cabal’s campaign is reminiscent of Reagan administration efforts to manipulate the national media (with the help of psychological operations officers on loan from the Army) to garner public support for the wars in Central America. But this time, the gambit appears to have been successful, at least judging from the absurdly lopsided media coverage.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), the media watch group, studied the coverage of six major nightly newscasts: ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS’s Evening News, NBC’s Nightly News, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume and PBS’s NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. FAIR examined 1,617 on-camera sources appearing on Iraq-related stories during the height of the war, from March 20 to April 9. Who were these sources?

  • 63 percent were current or former government employees.
  • 52 percent were Bush administration officials.
  • 64 percent were pro-war.
  • 10 percent were anti-war, and the majority of these were man-on-the street soundbites.
  • 3 percent of all U.S. sources were anti-war.
  • 0 percent of all sources who were invited to have a sit-down on camera interview were identified as being against the war.
(The prize for the most lopsided coverage goes to CBS Evening News: 75 percent of its sources were officials, and the single anti-war voice it aired was a snip from Michael Moore’s Oscar speech.)

According to polls, 27 percent of Americans figured out they were being snookered and came out against the war. And, no doubt, many Americans who supported the war did so not because they had been persuaded it was right, but because they perceived it as a fait accompli.

Overall, that is good news. All of us wanting—and working—to protect America’s constitutional democracy from a Cabal that would toy with it should be encouraged that millions of our fellow citizens were media savvy enough not to be bamboozled by the administration’s disinformation campaign.

Joel Bleifuss is the editor of In These Times, where he has worked as an investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986. Bleifuss has had more stories on Project Censored's annual list of the “10 Most Censored Stories” than any other journalist.

More information about Joel Bleifuss
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    I’m offended by the idea that 73% of America was for the war because we weren’t able to see through what was decidedly a pro-war media coverage, as you said. But if 64% of people were pro-war (on tv) then I don’t see how that’s misleading anyone. 73 pro-war country-wide, 64 tv, seems ok to me.

    Another thing, its possible for people to form their own opinions even if they don’t agree with you.

    Posted by Brad on May 28, 2003 at 6:27 PM

    so many lies, I guess it’s true, “the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree”

    Posted by Ed on May 28, 2003 at 10:24 PM

    This magazine has always been hilarious, but this story might be a new low when it comes to credibility.  Bleifuss, just admit it.  You hate America. 

    Posted by Tom on May 29, 2003 at 8:27 AM

    Fuck the French. While the Bush administration has done plenty of shady stuff in regards to misinformation, there are plenty of sources outside the Shrub Cult, such as the BBC, Al-Jazeera, etc that have pointed fingers at France’s hypocritical and possibly criminal actions in both the UN and in regards to supplying Iraq banned weapons parts. Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire, and France is burning. And although I did not support the invasion, I say it serves France right. Let them burn.

    Posted by Gary on May 29, 2003 at 1:47 PM

    have any Americans (especially denfence secretary Donald Rumsfeld) managed to forget that America supplied Iraq with arms and money, when it was under control of the great tyrant Saddam Hussein????

    Posted by tristancrisante on May 30, 2003 at 4:44 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 59 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Joel Bleifuss

Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!

Popular Discussions