How complete were the questions put by Aaron Brown of collegues when it came to their reporting?
An example is below.
My opinion, in regard to this, and where Mr. Cohen never completed his assertions regarding the lies of the Bush White House, was the FACT there were United Nations inspectors 'On The Ground' in Iraq at the request of Bush's Administration. Additionally, the expense of those inspectors were paid by a neutral country so there was no undue pressure on the UN Inspectors to alter their results. Concluding, Bush did not offer proof that over rode the authority of the findings of the UN inspectors when he and his administration, including Dick Cheney, invaded Iraq. Bush invaded Iraq a full day before the meeting of the UN Security Council where they were to come to a conclusion regarding the findings of the UN Inspectors. Bush invaded Iraq on 'steam' alone knowing full well no other country would oppose the military might of the USA for the sake of Saddam.
In Mr. Cohen's statements on ethics he stands out as being more than correct when the conclusions are not filtered through White House standards so much as 'the entire picture.' I more than likely would disagree with Aaron and his questions of 'proof' in that there is plenty of proof, but, Aaron's standards of collegues was not to be friendly but to be complete and correct. He carried out his responsibility in the interview with flying colors. In order to 'beat' Aaron's interviews one had to remain cool, calm and prepared. It was tough to be completely prepared.
What the public was treated to night after night was a perfectionist view of the world. He was not a 'spin doctor,' he was a journalist first and foremost. He assumed no political position of correctness. Aaron is hard core news. The public is his driving force. The love of his profession, his country and a hunger for accuracy are what qualified his journalistic style.
From the Tuesday, June 10, 2003 MRC CyberAlert about Cohen’s appearnce on the Friday, June 6 NewsNight on CNN:
During an appearance on CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown, Randy Cohen, who writes “The Ethicist” column for the New York Times Magazine, charged: “I think this is the big ethical story of the week -- is many people are asserting that the President is a liar, that the President lied about -- in order to get our country into a war. That's a serious story.”
When Brown suggested that “one should have evidence” that Bush lied “before one makes that argument,” Cohen snidely retorted: “Do you mean, before one drags the country into a war?”
Brown also raised the possibility the Bush administration just made a mistake. Cohen then contended: “The alternatives then are corrupt or incompetent. And that if you are so wrong about all three causes, then I wonder if you can honorably hold -- continue to hold your office. It's an important thing. Many people died.”
But not as many as the New York Times editorials and “news analysis” pieces by R.W. “Johnny” Apple predicted.
MRC analyst Ken Shepherd checked the transcript against the tape of the June 6 NewsNight and here is how the discussion proceeded after they talked about William Bulger continuing to serve as President of the University of Massachusetts when he refuses to help the FBI locate his fugitive brother, and the Martha Stewart matter:
Brown: “There's an interesting right or wrong, I'm not sure exactly where it centers, in this whole debate and discussion over weapons of mass destruction and what the government may have known, may have sort of known, but made it sound like maybe they knew more, all of that. What do you see there?”
Cohen: “I see you being surprising gentle, Aaron. I think the story -- and I think this is the big ethical story of the week -- is many people are asserting that the President is a liar, that the President lied about -- in order to get our country into a war. That's a serious story.”
Brown: “Well, yes, but it's also -- that would be a very serious story. One should have evidence of that, though, shouldn't one, before one makes that argument?”
Cohen: “Do you mean, before one drags the country into a war?”
Brown: “Well, that also. But before one asserts that anyone, including the President of the United States, is a liar, one ought to be able to prove that.”
Cohen: “Well, it's an interesting problem, that the -- and more and more papers are reporting it now, that the President listed three causes for the war, Iraq was an imminent threat to us, and to its neighbors, that Iraq was connected with the events of September 11, and that there would be weapons of mass destruction there. None of these things have been found. And I think many people believe the burden is on the president to prove his case. And if he doesn't, he then, it seems to me, is either a liar or a fool, and that's a very awkward position to be in.”
Brown: “Why is the burden on the President, and why are those the two choices? Why isn't one of the choices that intelligence was simply wrong? They thought they were right, but they were wrong. That is also a possibility.”
Cohen: “Well, yes, but the alternatives then are corrupt or incompetent. And that if you are so wrong about all three causes, then I wonder if you can honorably hold -- continue to hold your office. It's an important thing. Many people died.”
Brown: “They died. I’m with you on that.”
Cohen: “And the questions of his integrity have been raised by many places.”
Brown: “And I agree with that.”
Cohen: “By members of both parties. I think it has to be taken seriously as an ethical matter, absolutely.”
