Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

"Special Report" Smears Former Sec. of State Madeline Albright

Reported by Janie - May 11, 2006

Yesterday (5/10) on "Special Report with Brit Hume", Hume and frequent guest Charles Krauthammer, attacked former Secretary of State Madeline Albright for what they claimed was her position on Iran. Unfortunately, everything they had to say about her supposed position and the recent letter from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were either outright lies, or complete distortions.

During Hume's "Two Minutes of Hate" under the banner, "Legitimate Concerns?" Hume began his tirade against Albright:

"Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright says the issues raised by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his 17-page letter to President Bush are "not irrelevant." Speaking in Seattle, Albright urged the United States to engage in direct talks with Iran, saying, "Rather than thinking it's a clash of civilizations, I think we are in a battle of ideas."

Some of the Iranian president's ideas as expressed in that letter include questioning the basis for the existence of Israel; suggesting that U.S. security services were behind 9/11; and saying that democracy has failed in the world."

Comment: Talk about stretching the truth. Hume obviously believes his viewers don't have access to the internet because he completely distorts the comments made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here is what Ahmadeinejad had to say on 9/11: "Mr. President, September 11 was a horrendous incident ... Our government immediately declared its disgust with the perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies ... September 11 was not a simple operation. Could it be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services -- or their extensive infiltration? Of course, this is just an educated guess. Why have the various aspects of the attack been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And why aren’t those responsible identified and put on trial.?"

Here is what Ahmadeinejad had to say about Israel: "Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history, many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that 60 years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say, try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel. ...

Mr President, I am sure you know how -- and at what cost -- Israel was established: Many thousands were killed in the process. Millions of indigenous people were made refugees."

I'm not really clear how Ahmadeinejad is wrong in these statements. His 9/11 comments were merely question that many Americans themselves have, Israel really didn't exist 60 years ago, many died through its establishment and many were made refugees. But Hume can't be bothered with minor details like the truth. He'd rather make it appear that the Iranian leader is nuts and going off on rants - once again to hype an impending war for the Administration.

At the same time, Hume wants his viewers on the side of the President, no matter what the cost, who has turned a blind eye to the Iranian letter because he apparently doesn't like being called out in public. If someone, anyone, brings up the point that there might be something in the letter worth discussing, that person must be immediately attacked while distorting what the letter said to both further the cause of the President and smear Albright through free association. Next on Fox we'll begin to hear that Albright believes Bush was responsible for 9/11 because she said some of the items addressed in the letter were "not irrelevant".

Later in the show, during the pompous "All Star Panel" segment, Weekly Standard (a News Corp property) writer Charles Krauthammer decided to take it even further.

CK: "What I think is pernicious about the Albright statement, is that by calling for bilateral talks between the US and Iran, which as I said last night has now started to be the chorus of the defeatist here and abroad. It's not only incredibly hypocritical, but it's going to undermine our diplomacy."

BH: "Why is it hypocritical?"

CK: "It's hypocritical because Albright and the Democrats and the left here and in Europe have been attacking the administration for 5 years for unilateralism. The ABM treaty, on Kyoto, on Iraq, and they said you have to work, you remember what Kerry would say over and over again with the French and the Germans and the Europeans. So on Iran, that's exactly what the United States has done. The Administration, two years ago, wanted to act on Iranian infractions, instead it gave the ball to France and Germany, and Britain. And they have carried it. After two years of our patience, they have concluded that Iran is cheating, and there has to be international action. To know recommend that America abandon all of that, we give up the only thing to come out of these three years of negotiations, which is that the western Europeans had a stake in these negotiations, helping us and not imposing sanctions. Once you abandon the multilateral process and end up in American negotiations with Iran, all of the blame will be on us, the western European nations will be off the hook on sanctions and end up a disaster, and for a former Secretary of State to advocate that at a critical time in this diplomacy to undermine our position, is, let me look for a diplomatic word, disgraceful."

Well, what a surprise. Krauthammer is also completely distorting and basically outright lying about Albright's stated position on Iran. She has not once called for the end of multilateral talks, but feels that the US should be included in them, since until the letter from Ahmadeinejad there has no correspondence between the US and an Iranian President since 1979. If we plan on bombing the country and taking out Ahmadeinejad, maybe we should at least listen to what he has to say first, before rushing to judgment. Maybe even have a discussion with him before we "unilaterally" go to war with his country. Or maybe we could just buy him dinner first...

Albright declared her position in a letter to the White House just two weeks ago. The letter concludes with, "Accordingly, we call on the U.S. administration, hopefully with the support of the trans-Atlantic community, to take the bold step of opening a direct dialogue with the Iranian government on the issue of Iran's nuclear program."

This directly contradicts the picture painted by Krauthammer and Hume. The drum beat for war continues on "Special Report" with lies, distortions, and spin for the Administration.

Post a comment

Remember Me?

We welcome your opinions and viewpoints. Comments must remain civil, on-topic and must not violate any copyright or other laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments we deem inappropriate or non-constructive to the discussion for any reason, and to block any commenter for repeated violations.

Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.