Steyn vs ABC: who's a mug?
I don't know if you've been following the ongoing clash between prolific right-wing columnist Mark Steyn and the ABC's Mediawatch, but it's a damn good stoush.
Mediawatch had a go at one of Steyn's columns, which claimed terrorist Mohammed Atta's obsure meeting with a certain Jonelle Bryant was the "defining encounter of the age" not the meeting between Atta's jet and the World Trade Center. That's quite a claim.
Mediawatch, however, pointed out that Atta could not be shown to have been in the US at the date of that encounter. Steyn responded robustly, as always. Then there was a pause. Mediawatch did not respond that night on its show nor the following week.
On Monday it did, rather well in fact.
Mediawatch had a go at one of Steyn's columns, which claimed terrorist Mohammed Atta's obsure meeting with a certain Jonelle Bryant was the "defining encounter of the age" not the meeting between Atta's jet and the World Trade Center. That's quite a claim.
Mediawatch, however, pointed out that Atta could not be shown to have been in the US at the date of that encounter. Steyn responded robustly, as always. Then there was a pause. Mediawatch did not respond that night on its show nor the following week.
On Monday it did, rather well in fact.
Maybe Defence is lying. Maybe the Pentagon is covering up. Maybe the immigration records are wrong. Maybe it's safer to rely on Mark's Steyn's hunch that Mohammed Atta slipped across the Canadian border, (or was it the Mexican?) earlier than we thought. But as Mark admitted in a different article for The New York Sun he simply doesn't knowAnd
We'll keep it simple Mark. Before you say a meeting is the defining encounter of the age, more important than 9-11, check out the evidence, official or otherwise, that it's not a hoax and tell your readers what you find.
posted by Rob O'Neill at 10:39 AM
5 Comments:
Atta didn't officially use that name prior to his visa application:
http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/08/attas_visa.html
And the people from Able Danger (5 out of 10 core staff apparently) who claim to have recognised him are very credible witnesses, something the ABC ignores:
"Through interviews, DoD officials did find three people who recall a chart with either a photo or a reference to Atta, Downs said. The three are in addition to Army Reserve Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, a military intelligence officer with U.S. Special Operations Command, who originally came forward with allegations that Atta had been identified before Sept. 11.
One person who recalled the chart was a SOCOM civilian analyst; one was an analyst with the Land Information Warfare Activity; and one was a contractor, said Thomas Gandy, the Army’s director of counterintelligence and human intelligence."
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/09/able_danger_pen.html
And they may have found a chart:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/09/quick_hits_on_a.html
I'm sure if Steyn is proven wrong he'll admit it (after all he's done it before). But I can't see anything in the ABC's performance to indicate they would do the same - they appear to be filtering out anything which doesn't present them in a bad light. Steyn on the other hand could simply have ignored the ABC as they have a rather insignificant readership compared to his internationally syndicated columns and website. But I think he enjoys the debate.
Lemur! Welcome and thanks for the links.
I think you miss the point. There are times when you can wrap yourself up in too much detail and evidence.
If we are arguing about whether something actually happened, how can anyone accept that something being described as the "defining encounter of the age".
99.9% of people have never even heard of Jonelle Bryant. How can it be described like that?
I'd heard of her, not from Steyn but from initial reporting after 9/11. I'd always wondered where her account of events disappeared to.
I think Steyn's point was that the attacks would never have occurred if slack Government agencies hadn't allowed the terrorists into the USA (and ignored all the other signals) in the first place. It's not like they were pros at getting false identification papers or altering their appearances - far from it.
But I'm sure in hindsight he regrets the title of his piece. Can't say I would have written something like it - at least not without a qualifying question mark or similar.
But anyway, I'm more interested in the outcome of this Able Danger investigation. If they've found the poster then that will resolve the claim Atta was known beforehand - for one side or the other.
Then Steyn will have to respond to the ABC again.
I'll say one more thing though - if you're caught out you should admit it as civilly as possible and move on.
Can't disagree with that.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home