I don't know how this makes any difference. That a guy lied about interviews, made up fake stories about Iran, that ABC consistently has "scoops" about Iranian involvement in Iraq. We have the president and vice president of the United States routinely lying to us (and will do so again tonite) and yet they still operate with the Nod and Wink Media blessing. The question these days is what ISN"T a lie with these guys.
Posted by T2 at September 13, 2007 01:04 PMReal interviews, fake interviews, it doesn't change the fact that Iran remains part of Bush's so-called "axis of evil," nor does it change the fact that Cheney has been busy for years behind the scenes orchestrating how the U.S. military will invade and occupy Iran.
Some analysts report ground forces coming in from occupied Iraq, as well as Uzbekistan to the north, where the U.S. military has been building up a presence since Bush was installed in the White House.
These neoconservatives are insane and if war with Iran turns into WWIII, they don't care. This is one of the reasons why people want Bush and Cheney impeached before they could mount another war in the Middle East.
Posted by Christopher at September 13, 2007 01:35 PMOddly enough I sort of discounted that report and the latest one from Fox that talked about a strike on Iran in eight to ten months. There was a whiff of disinformation in both, but I can't sort out what the intent is or if there is any truth in either. Not even sure that outing Debat isn't part of the disinformation campaign.
Posted by Marie at September 13, 2007 01:40 PMCrack is whack.
Posted by snark at September 13, 2007 01:41 PMNot even sure that outing Debat isn't part of the disinformation campaign.
Boy Howdy, people just looove their conspiracy theories don't they?
Posted by iamcoyote at September 13, 2007 01:50 PMHe was scammed because he signed off on a ghost written and conducted interview.
Plain enough?
Posted by Duckman GR at September 13, 2007 02:23 PMHe was scammed because he signed off on a ghost written and conducted interview.
...that supposedly never happened. Among others, supposedly.
Plain as mud.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 13, 2007 03:01 PMiamcoyote - no "hypothesis" (why can't people use the proper word and stop using "theory") Debat could simply be a better version of Gannon/Guckert without the prostitution angle. Or he could be another lucky lone wolf that crawled his way out of the sewer and nobody noticed for a long time.
Posted by Marie at September 13, 2007 03:13 PMDebat is looking like Glass, Jason Blair and Cooke all rolled into one Raw Story. Wonder if he'll take down anybody with him? (Will probably always have to wonder if the FBI/CIA/DOD/WH had him on a retainer as well.)
How I enjoy small time con-artists and the people they so easily dupe.
Posted by Marie at September 13, 2007 04:16 PM(why can't people use the proper word and stop using "theory")
'Cause "wacky conspiracy hypothesis" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as smoothly? Besides, unless you're doing real science, hypothesis and theory are interchangeable in our vernacular, not to mention the "conspiracy theory" phrase is the widely accepted term these days.
Debat is looking like Glass, Jason Blair and Cooke all rolled into one
Heh, with a little bit of Curveball tossed in for good measure.
the people they so easily dupe.
Well, it looks like a lot of people were, considering how many linked back last week to the timesonline uk article that talked about "pinprick strikes" that the Pentagon has planned against Iran.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 13, 2007 04:51 PMDebat doesn't matter. The real stuff is in the report by Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, linked to by Larisa A. at Raw Story and Scott Horton here:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001184
Debat's Times bit was more visible but less informed and way less plausible. The SOAS report is truly scary and is IMHO probable.
Posted by John Shreffler at September 13, 2007 04:58 PMActually, their paper was how a an attack on Iran might be conducted. It never gave any evidence that it would happen, which is the real question still unanswered.
The thing is, everyone's running around saying it is going to happen - conflating the assumption that the Pentagon has plans, which I'm sure they do, with the assertion that it will.
My beef is that changing the narrative from if to when is bogus, and gives the Cheney admin the argument before any debate has happened.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 13, 2007 05:16 PMiamcoyote - blogs are great for analyzing and sifting through information that's in the public arena but much of that information is generated by reporters who are paid to dig up stuff or gather first hand information from all over the place. Debat's stuff may have had a slight odor but until Rozen started digging, he credentials were better than a lot of others who do perform good solid reporting. So, you're smugness about the number of people who linked to his report is just a bit too, well, smug.
Posted by Marie at September 13, 2007 08:20 PMSo, you're smugness about the number of people who linked to his report is just a bit too, well, smug.
Smug? I suppose it would seem so to anyone who trumpeted Debat's claims only to find he's not the impeccable source everyone made him out to be.
More than that, I'm relieved. Hopefully, this will remind bloggers that you can't believe anything that comes out of the Nixon Center, even if you so desperately want to believe what you're reading. After all these years of fact-checking the media, suddenly, these reports are accepted without question? And it's not just with this issue, either. I've seen people here jump on a negative headline about other things only to be proved wrong. We used to be skeptical of the media, but I've noticed that the skepticism disappears when the headline says something people want to believe or have a suspicion (without real evidence) may be true.
As I said above, everyone was reading the headlines about a Pentagon plan to attack Iran and turning it into "Bush is going to attack Iran," then conveniently finding all sorts of "evidence" that it was going to happen soon. A quick google showed me that all the arguments circled back to Debat, and the Plesch paper which was totally suspicious. I've seen it before with rightwing claims about Iraq. Bloggers should know better. We even covered stories about how Cheney wanted the propaganda catapulted and the Bushies had plans to plant stories in papers around the world.
This isn't to say that Bush absolutely won't do it, or doesn't want to do it. He's wacky enough to try, but I'm relieved because the revelation about Debat just may derail the sense of inevitability about an imminent attack which I felt was helping Bush by giving fatalistic acceptance rather than aggressive opposition. Sadly, I'm afraid this story will probably die because the egos involved won't want to be reminded of how they were duped.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 14, 2007 06:07 AMDebat's work was of high quality and he got caught into some of the intricacies of DC machineries. His work was of excellent quality. Never anyone said:"well, hey, where is this guy coming from with this information?" because his credentials are real. The sad thing is that his complete credibility and work is now being questioned because he got caught in the game. What about the so called Middle east experts who do not speak a word of Arabic and have never set foot in the Middle East? What about the so called Strategists and hip people alike in the academia who know how to schmooze their way around without a substantial work to back them? What about the fact that the most famous saying in DC is "What matter is who you know not what you know"? You don't hear anyone of them being called fakes or impostors? This is not FEMA case. Debat had credential and high quality work to back his status and fame. It is regrettable that he got caught lying. Finally, this is the only incident that we know of, the other interviews were all real, so please before preaching about making up things get your sources correct too.
Posted by at September 14, 2007 12:36 PMThis isn't to say that Bush absolutely won't do it, or doesn't want to do it. He's wacky enough to try, but I'm relieved because the revelation about Debat just may derail the sense of inevitability about an imminent attack which I felt was helping Bush by giving fatalistic acceptance rather than aggressive opposition.
My feeling exactly, coyote. It will be much harder for people to even listen to Brian Ross or the UK Independent when they are doing Uncle Dickie's work in setting the stage for a provocation.
And Erin, it does look like you've found the Debat sockpuppet. Too bad he didn't leave a handle. BTW: this was a great catch. Thanks for the story.
Posted by Mary at September 15, 2007 09:17 AM