Carnegie-Report: Hardline Bush-Hater Presented as "Expert" / Carnegie-Studie: Entschiedene Bush-Gegner als "Experten" vorgestellt

(German version at end of post)

The "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" has published a report ("WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications"), written by Joseph Cirincione, Jessica T. Mathews, and George Perkovich. The main thesis: "Iraq not imminent danger before war, report concludes".

The media - as in this example from the Boston Globe - lend the study an aura of scientific knowledge and objective expertise:

"The study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace states ... a private nonpartisan research organization ... Carnegie Endowment researchers ... one of the nation's oldest foreign affairs think tanks"

At least some media faintly hint at the foundation's political bias: "Carnegie is regarded as a moderately left-of-centre think-tank" (Financial Times). Others point to the fact that two (Jessica T. Mathews and George Perkovich) of the three authors of the study "served in the Clinton administration and opposed the Iraq war." (Boston Globe)

The third author, Joseph Cirincione, has proven himself to be a hardline Bush-hater and a foe of the "neo-conservatives". He bitterly opposed the 2003 Iraq war - before and after. His remarks on the subject were frequently polemic and condescending towards members of the Bush administration. Cirincione does not deserve to be presented as an "expert" or "researcher".

A small, determined band of ideologues has used the national tragedy of September 11 to move their radical anti-proliferation strategy from the fringes of policy debate to the dominant center. (Joseph Cirincione, Towards a New, Effective Non-Proliferation Strategy, Dec. 2003)

"It's not just that the Europeans disagree with Bush," said Joseph Cirincione, a foreign policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They find him and his administration arrogant, bullying and insulting. It's very personal." ... "They want another president to restore that special relationship," said Cirincione. "They don't want to have a special relationship with this guy." (Bush leaves England unpopular with many, San Diego Union Tribune, November 22, 2003)

After the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, congressional leaders relentlessly attacked government analysts who presented balanced assessments for understating the missile threat. Congress mandated its own assessment by a hand-picked commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld. His 1998 report warned that a ballistic missile attack could come from a hostile state "with little or no warning." This fit with preconceived positions for increased defense budgets and a crash program to field a national missile defense system. (Joseph Cirincione, A Much Less Explosive Trend, Washington Post, March 10, 2002)

One has to wonder: Has Colin Powell now indeed signed on to this dangerous illusion of the new democratic imperialism? ... In the end, they are selling the war like any car salesman would — with promises of a low down payment, but one that is hiding the exorbitant monthly payments that will burden Americans for decades. (Joseph Cirincione, No More Exits for Colin Powell, The Globalist, February 13, 2003)

To the rest of the world it will indeed look like colonialism. With the best of intentions, and with surprisingly little public discussion, we are about to overthrow a government, appoint a U.S. military ruler, and, after several years of transition, install our hand-picked alternatives. (Joseph Cirincione, The New American Colonialism, February 2003)

BTW: Cirincione made some sensationally accurate predictions before the 2003 Iraq war:

(There) are several very plausible scenarios that could turn the war into a catastrophe. These include the use of chemical or biological weapons against US troops; an attack on Israel that prompts an Israeli counter-attack, possibly with a nuclear weapon; the siege of Baghdad resulting in thousands of Arab and US casualties. (Joseph Cirincione, Why We Won’t Go to War, Article in Le Monde, December 9, 2002)

With "experts" like Cirincione, who needs biased journalists?

Deutsche Version/German version

Carnegie-Studie: Entschiedene Bush-Gegner als "Experten" vorgestellt

Das Institut "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" hat ein Gutachten ("WMD IN IRAQ - Evidence and Implications") über die Suche nach Massenvernichtungswaffen im Irak veröffentlicht. Die Autoren sind Joseph Cirincione, Jessica T. Mathews und George Perkovich.

Die Studie hat in deutschen (und in internationalen) Medien große Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Ergebnis der Studie: "US-Forscher werten Irakkrieg als Fehler" (WELT). Der Artikel der WELT - und anderer deutscher Medien - verleiht den Autoren die reputierliche Aura der Wissenschaftlichkeit und der Sachkunde:

"Experten sichten Material ... nach Meinung von Wissenschaftlern ... Dies folgert eine Gruppe von Waffenexperten der Carnegie-Stiftung ... Die Forscher des unabhängigen Instituts zur Friedensforschung ... Überdies fanden die Experten ... Experten der US-Denkfabrik."

Immerhin: andere Medien weisen zumindestens darauf hin, daß die Carnegie-Stiftung politisch "links von der Mitte" steht. Zwei der drei Autoren (Jessica T. Mathews and George Perkovich) waren Mitglieder der Regierung von Präsident Clinton (Boston Globe). Aber keine Zeitung enthüllt, wie sehr sich der dritte Autor, Joseph Cirincione, in früheren Stellungnahmen als entschiedener Gegner von Präsident Bush, der "Neokonservativen" und des Irak-Feldzuges - davor und danach - profiliert hat. Seine polemischen Formulierungen und persönlichen Verunglimpfungen belegen, daß Cirincione den Titel "Experte" oder "Wissenschaftler" nicht verdient hat.

A small, determined band of ideologues has used the national tragedy of September 11 to move their radical anti-proliferation strategy from the fringes of policy debate to the dominant center. (Joseph Cirincione, Towards a New, Effective Non-Proliferation Strategy, Dec. 2003)

"It's not just that the Europeans disagree with Bush," said Joseph Cirincione, a foreign policy analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "They find him and his administration arrogant, bullying and insulting. It's very personal." ... "They want another president to restore that special relationship," said Cirincione. "They don't want to have a special relationship with this guy." (Bush leaves England unpopular with many, San Diego Union Tribune, November 22, 2003)

After the Republican Party won control of Congress in 1994, congressional leaders relentlessly attacked government analysts who presented balanced assessments for understating the missile threat. Congress mandated its own assessment by a hand-picked commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld. His 1998 report warned that a ballistic missile attack could come from a hostile state "with little or no warning." This fit with preconceived positions for increased defense budgets and a crash program to field a national missile defense system. (Joseph Cirincione, A Much Less Explosive Trend, Washington Post, March 10, 2002)

One has to wonder: Has Colin Powell now indeed signed on to this dangerous illusion of the new democratic imperialism? ... In the end, they are selling the war like any car salesman would — with promises of a low down payment, but one that is hiding the exorbitant monthly payments that will burden Americans for decades. (Joseph Cirincione, No More Exits for Colin Powell, The Globalist, February 13, 2003)

To the rest of the world it will indeed look like colonialism. With the best of intentions, and with surprisingly little public discussion, we are about to overthrow a government, appoint a U.S. military ruler, and, after several years of transition, install our hand-picked alternatives. (Joseph Cirincione, The New American Colonialism, February 2003)

Übrigens hat sich Cirincione vor dem Irak-Feldzug auch als Zukunftsdeuter mit phänomenaler Treffsicherheit erwiesen:

(There) are several very plausible scenarios that could turn the war into a catastrophe. These include the use of chemical or biological weapons against US troops; an attack on Israel that prompts an Israeli counter-attack, possibly with a nuclear weapon; the siege of Baghdad resulting in thousands of Arab and US casualties. (Joseph Cirincione, Why We Won’t Go to War, Article in Le Monde, December 9, 2002)

Wer braucht eigentlich noch Kampagnen-Journalismus, wenn es doch "Experten" wie Joseph Cirincione gibt?

Comments

[Stephen]

Great, informative post! Keep up the good work.

[Thomas]

Und Spiegel Online hat mit dem ehemaligen Finanzminister O'Neill auch schon den nächsten Kronzeugen für die Unfähigkeit Bushs aufgetan (die scheinen nach der Weihnachtspause aber auch wieder voll aufmunitioniert zu haben und in ihrem virtuellen Anti-Bush-Wahlkampf Howard Dean noch überbieten zu wollen. Übrigens bemerkenswert, daß man von Dean hier noch ziemlich wenig liest, und seine Fehltritte fast gar nicht erwähnt wird...) Hmm, ich mag mich irren, aber daß Leute, die sich in relativem Unfrieden trennen, gern mal nachtreten, ist meines Wissens nichts Neues. Nur daß z. B. die Lafontaine-Kommentare über die Schrödersche Politik bei Spiegel Online selten so weit oben stehen in der Nachrichtenhierarchie (obwohl sie nicht weniger scharf oder häufig sind), und daß man sich Überschriften wie 'Breitseite gegen Schröder' und Kommentare wie 'Weder inhaltlich noch formal lässt er ein gutes Haar an Schröders Führungskompetenz.' in diesen Fällen bei Spiegel weniger vorstellen kann. Während es natürlich bei Blair wieder skandalisiert wurde, wenn Cook / Short ihn kritisierten. Aber natürlich längst nicht mit derselben Häme wie bei Bush, dem dummen, skrupellosen Cowboy. Wie hieß es doch kürzlich so schön: 'Amerika, Dich haßt es besser.'
Und bald lesen wir dann über die Ergebnisse der Beobachtungen der unabhängigen Experten Howard Dean, Noam Chomsky und Michael Moore. Ups, die letzten beiden gelten hier ja schon als unparteiische Wissenschaftler / DOKUMENTARfilmer...

[Lilli Marleen]

And what is with the facts? I mean, all you were able to point out was that the authors don't like Bush and his friends. Okay. Welcome among millions others.
But have you anything able to enlighten us about the contents of what they write and about how wrong they are? Are you able to argue against their facts and not just their ideology?
The rest is pure semantics and completely irrelevant (in best 7of9 voice) for more than a sidenote.

[Alene Berk]

Lili, the difficulty is that none of it is "facts". All is conclusory opinion and speculation, particularly about motive. The most one can do, then, is point out such dissonances as Cirincione's claim, pre-war, that the risk of attack with WMD is a reason for not going in, and his claim, post-war, that we were purposely misled.

You see, the "conventional wisdom", as held by everyone fron UNMOVIC on through every intel agency, was the same: there were WMD (and so, a risk of attack with WMD). This "wisdom" may represent a grave failure of intelligence, but it cannot represent a lie.

[Erik Eisel]

One fact that I find very persuasive is a recent poll, which showed that 68% of Americans supported the Iraq war in one year ago and still support it today. Iraq war supporters do not exclusively belong to a radical fringe of sinister "neo-conservatives" within the White House.
By the way, it seems to me that Mr. Cirincione glosses over several important facts himself.
1. America was attacked by terrorists on 9/11, costing 3,000 lives.
2. President Clinton pre-emptively attacked Saddam in 1998 due to his belief in the existence of WMD in Iraq. Did Clinton belong to a "radical fringe"?
3. We are learning everyday more about the links between Saddam and al-Quaeda.

After all, who do you think is attacking American soldiers in Iraq? It's al-Quaeda and affiliated organizations, not some authentic "resistance" inspired by Sophie Scholl.

David is right to expose the bias of Mr. Cirincione. It's the same kind of palaver you hear from Paul Krugman's mouth, who is also very short on facts.

On a final note, here's the different between fact and theory:

Fact: America and Europe are safer with the capture of Iraq.

Theory: The Saudis warned Bush of 9/11, and he let it happen, so that he had a reason to invade Iraq.