Deep Blade Journal

Open letter to Maine PBS MaineWatch program

Dear Ms. Albright,

This message concerns the recent re-broadcast of the 2004 interview with the late Caspar Weinberger. You may recall our earlier correspondence on this matter. Even though the former defense secretary unfortunately has died, I would like now to renew many of my previous comments. Obviously Mr. Weinberger is no longer available to respond to criticism and some may view an examination of the truth in history to be tantamount to trampling on a grave.

But don’t you think that many of the assertions now standing as the MaineWatch view of Iraq and the Reagan legacy justifiably ought to be reviewed? This state is full of people who are working on these issues from a peace perspective, day-in and day-out.

For example, why don’t you send some MaineWatch cameras over to the Hope Festival at the University of Maine on April 22? You’ll find thousands of public broadcasting supporters there–ready, willing, and able to give you a ton of the sort of “balance” I suggest below.

So, as a very creative producer, I would ask you to please figure out a way to address the following concerns about the Weinberger interview in the sensitive manner in which I know you are capable:

Lack of Balance In the Weinberger interview, highly controversial, unabashed pro-war views about the invasion and occupation of Iraq were presented. Please, Ms. Albright, consider producing for MaineWatch a similar 20-minute segment featuring local peace activists. For the most part, MaineWatch programs over the last three years have completely ignored the vigorous peace movement that is ongoing here in Maine. Way back, during the run-up to the Iraq war, the one MaineWatch segment that covered Maine people who rode busses to the large Washington DC peace demonstration in January 2003 was carefully balanced by an interview with a retired military man. Should not this episode be afforded some kind of parallel treatment, especially considering that almost everything the peace movement was saying then has turned out to be true three years later?

Unchallenged assertions Mr. Weinberger’s made questionable and entirely unchallenged assertions about Iraq and other matters. Many of these statements are factually unsupportable. For example, Mr. Weinberger said that the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were “still getting paid by Saddam Hussein’s government.” This goes much farther than even the case that dubiously had been made by the Bush administration on evidence from discredited intelligence sources–that “Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda” (President Bush, Jan. 28, 2003 and at other times).

Iran-Contra indictment While the program did include a question to Mr. Weinberger about being indicted (then pardoned by President George H. W. Bush) in the Iran-Contra investigation, he just brushed off his indictment as the politically motivated action of an out-of-control special prosecutor. In reality, substantial evidence indicated Mr. Weinberger told lies about his diaries on the Iran-Contra affair. That is what led to the indictment. Should we believe now that truth was told in this interview?

Arming Iraq On justification for war on Saddam Hussein, Mr. Weinberber stated that “you can’t deal with people like that, you can’t negotiate with liars.” But the obvious contradiction entirely missing from this interview and all other recent hagiography is that Weinberger did deal with Saddam at a high level and in secret. One of his major Pentagon foreign policy projects in the 1980s was the vigorous armament of Saddam Hussein. The effort included removal of Iraq from the terror-sponsor list and the offerings of envoy Donald Rumsfeld during more than one friendly visit to the palaces in Baghdad. Rumsfeld lobbied Saddam in favor of an oil pipeline project desired by Weinberger’s (and then-Secretary-of State George Shultz’s) former employer, Bechtel Corporation. The arms program was deeply illegal and was conducted despite Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. Later, this led to a less-investigated, less-reported, but even more explosive scandal called “Iraqgate.” Weinberger was a figure right at the heart of Iraqgate.

Nuclear legacy Caspar Weinberger was a tireless proponent of the nuclear arms race. The nuclear arsenal he hysterically promoted while alive will haunt the world for decades to come.

Back in June 2004, you offered an interview with former Senator George Mitchell as a “useful balance.” This is fine, but is inadequate in addressing the concerns I have here. Senator Mitchell had cautioned against a long occupation of Iraq and was concerned about effects on foreign relations, but as far as I can tell from looking up his pre-war statements, he never was really opposed to the war, as long as it was swift.

It is unfortunate that MPBN’s MaineWatch has failed to cover in any substantial way one of the many visible and vigorous peace movement activities that surrounded the 3rd anniversary of the war, while giving substantial time for the one-sided, pro-war views of the late Caspar Weinberger.

Eric

This entry was posted on Monday, April 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 and is filed under commentary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.