PDA

View Full Version : Clash with CNN's Amanpour



PoliCon
01-22-2010, 06:55 PM
Sparks Fly as 'Courting Disaster' Author Clashes with CNN's Amanpour (VIDEO)

FROM (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35280&s=rcmp)
by Human Events (more by this author)
Posted 01/20/2010 ET
Updated 01/22/2010 ET

Sparks flew on CNN’s Amanpour, when conservative author Marc Thiessen directly challenged the CNN’s chief international correspondent with evidence that she had misled her viewers about the CIA’s waterboarding techniques. A stunned Amanpour

was left momentarily speechless as Thiessen pulled out a transcript from a 2008 CNN broadcast from the Khmer Rouge prison S-21, where Amanpour had stood before a picture of Khmer Rouge torturers drowning an innocent Cambodian in a vat of water, and declared that the CIA had done the same thing to terrorists in its custody.

Thiessen told Amanpour, “There have been so many so misstatements told about the enhanced interrogation techniques, comparing them to the Spanish Inquisition and the Khmer Rouge, and I have to tell you Christiane, you are one of the people who have spread these mistruths.”

An incredulous Amanpour replied, “Excuse me?”

Thiessen pulled out a transcript of her story from her visit to S-21, and said “Let me read to you what you said.” He then quoted Amanpour’s report:

“I stared blankly at another of Van Nath’s paintings. This time a prisoner is submerged in a life-size box full of water, handcuffed to the side so he cannot escape or raise his head to breathe. His interrogators, arrayed around him, are demanding information. I asked Van Nath whether he had heard this was once used on America’s terrorist suspected. He nodded his head. ‘It’s not right.”

Thiessen told Amanpour, “That is completely false.” Amanpour asked, “That’s false?” Thiessen told her, “We did not submerge people in a box of water.” Amanpour replied, “Excuse me a second, that is called waterboarding.” “No it’s not,” Thiessen replied. Amanpour tried to turn to the other guest, left-wing author Philippe Sands, but Thiessen pressed his point: “Christiane you are absolutely wrong. 14,000 people killed in S-21. Seven survivors …” But Amanpour cut him off, “Excuse me, you are trying to obfuscate the debate. That prison was full of images of water torture.” Thiessen responded, “Which is nothing like what the CIA did. Do you have any evidence …” Amanpour cut him again off to go Sands, after which Amanpour tried to change the subject.

But Thiessen pressed her: “I want to answer this, because it is very important. What you said was not waterboarding but a barrel filled with water. You have no evidence whatsoever that the CIA did what you said they did.”

Amanpour insisted that there was no difference between what she had described and what the CIA did. “Dipping people’s heads in water to simulate drowning. Period. End of story.” But as Thiessen explains in his new book, Courting Disaster, the Khmer Rouge not “simulate drowning” at S-21 – they actually drowned their victims. Only 7 of the 14,000 people who entered S-21 emerged alive.

In the shocking new book released this week, Thiessen takes Amanpour and other public figures to task for making false and shameful comparisons between the CIA and the torturers of murderous regimes like the Khmer Rouge. Among those Thiessen exposes for their lies and misstatements are Attorney General Eric Holder, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, former White House Special Counsel Lanny Davis, Atlantic Monthly blogger Andrew Sullivan and others.

Thiessen systematically dismantles their arguments, and shows how the “techniques used by the CIA bear no resemblance to the techniques used by the Inquisitors of the Middle Ages or the murderous regimes cited by the critics.”

Thiessen writes, “It is important to set the record straight—not only to restore the good name of those who interrogated terrorists in our custody, but also to restore the good name of our country. One of the principal arguments made against enhanced interrogations is that they have harmed America’s moral standing in the world. In truth, what has harmed America’s moral standing in the world are the false comparisons made by those who declare that America has practiced the same techniques as the most reviled despots and dictators in human history—when in fact we have done nothing of the sort.”

Thiessen set the record straight on CNN – and set Amanpour straight as well.


This interview was aired on CNN International Wednesday and will air domestically on Sunday.


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T87PGOU2tyo


Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jR9KmtD5jw

Rockntractor
01-22-2010, 07:00 PM
Good find Poli!

Articulate_Ape
01-22-2010, 08:03 PM
I have always thought Amanpour is the best looking guy CNN has working for them, but he really does need to lose that Darth Vader helmet hairdo, IMHO.

PoliCon
01-22-2010, 08:12 PM
Good find Poli!

according to the write up -it's not due to be released here in the US til Sunday . . . .

megimoo
01-22-2010, 09:04 PM
Peter Arnett is a former CNN correspondent. He was one of three CNN reporters who broadcast continuous coverage of the first night of the Allied Forces' bombing of Baghdad during Operation Desert Storm.John Holliman,Bernard Shaw,Peter Arnett,

CNN Reporters: Peter Arnett,Bernard Shaw,John Holliman and Christiane Amanpour,American haters all.

Iraq war shock and awe in Bagdhad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xhDkzH9z80&feature=related

PETER ARNETT
For more than 40 years Peter Arnett has reported from the world’s most dangerous combat zones. The New Zealand native went to Vietnam in 1962 for the Associated Press, staying with the story through the fall of Saigon and winning a 1966 Pulitzer Prize. As a correspondent for the fledgling cable news during the first Persian Gulf War, he delivered unprecedented reports from behind enemy lines in Baghdad, including an interview with President Saddam Hussein.

Arnett returned to Baghdad for the 2003 Iraq War, but was summarily fired for criticizing the American-led war effort during an interview on Iraqi state television.
........................................
BERNARD SHAW
Bernard Shaw, the former CNN reporter and Washington, D.C. anchor, told WTTW Channel 11 in Chicago that he's "very, very disappointed with the way news management" at CNN "has gone," reports TVSpy.com. He further complained that Fox News Channel is "the ratings leader ... and what Fox puts on the air is not news." Fox, in Shaw's view, is "commentary, personal analysis."

"I don't want to hear an anchor's personal opinion about anything. Just report the news," said Shaw. "But CNN continues to ape many of the on-air mannerisms of the Fox News Network, and I don't like that." This doesn't match his record. More on that in a moment.

Despite saying he detests opinions in the news, in the same interview, Shaw heaped praise on CNN host Lou Dobbs whom he called "one of the leaders there." That's the same Lou Dobbs who has turned his program into a one-man opinion show promoting protectionism, attacking the alleged evils of outsourcing, and advocating for stronger immigration laws.

A brief traipse through the MRC archives reveals that Shaw was anything but opposed to keeping his opinions out of the news:

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/node/13225#ixzz0dOXUGHAO
......................................
JOHN HOLLIMAN
CNN Newsman John Holliman, best known for his coverage of the Gulf War from Baghdad, was killed in an auto accident near his home in Snellville, GA, a suburb of Atlanta, Saturday. In a statement, CNN chairman Tom Johnson said, "John Holliman was one of a kind -- a CNN original
.......................................
Christiane Amanpour:
Christiane Amanpour (born January 12, 1958) is chief international correspondent for CNN. Based out of CNN's London bureau, Amanpour is one of the most recognized and highly distinguished international correspondents on American television. Her willingness to work in dangerous conflict zones has reportedly made her one of the more highly (if not the highest) paid field reporters in the world. She speaks English, Persian, and French fluently.

Shortly after her birth in London, her father, an Iranian airline executive, moved the family to Tehran, where the Amanpours led a privileged life. At age 11, she returned to England to attend first the Holy Cross Convent School in Buckinghamshire, England, and then the New Hall School, an exclusive Roman Catholic girls' school. Her family had to flee Iran after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Christiane moved to the United States to study journalism at the University of Rhode Island. After graduation, she worked for NBC affiliate WJAR in Providence, Rhode Island.

In 1983, she was hired by CNN. In 1989, she was posted to Frankfurt, West Germany, where she reported on the democratic revolutions sweeping Eastern Europe at the time. However, it was her coverage of the Persian Gulf War that followed Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in 1990 that made her famous. Thereafter, she reported from the Bosnian war and many other conflict zones. From 1996-2005, she contracted with CBS to file four to five in-depth, international news reports a year as a special contributor on that network's newsmagazine program, 60 Minutes.

In 1998 she married James Rubin, who at the time was spokesman for the US State Department. A son, Darius John Rubin, was born in the year 2000.

Her sister is Lizzy Amanpour, a producer for British television broadcaster Channel 4.

An Amanpour report validates a story's importance. She's often given entree where other reporters are neither welcomed nor allowed. She's an authority on Islam with extensive Middle East connections. Bill Clinton calls her the voice of humanity; critics in the Pentagon tag her as overly emotional and even biased.

Constitutionally Speaking
01-31-2010, 03:49 AM
according to the write up -it's not due to be released here in the US til Sunday . . . .

Guess what! They spiked the story in the U.S.!!!!!!

PoliCon
01-31-2010, 10:03 AM
Guess what! They spiked the story in the U.S.!!!!!!

I can't imagine why . . . .

AmPat
01-31-2010, 10:20 AM
I met Peter Arnett. He interviewed me in Afghanistan. I guess he didn't care for my comments since he didn't use any of them. Or maybe I'm just plain boring?:o

marv
01-31-2010, 12:05 PM
When she was questioned about her professional objectivity, Christiane Amanpour said it all when she was quoted saying,
"There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally."
No wonder CNN loses out to FOX.

ColonialMarine0431
01-31-2010, 12:21 PM
Amazing. Terrorists did this...

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y53/ColonialMarine/9-11.jpg

...and Amapour and her eurotrash Limey are debating whether waterboarding is torture?

God I hate eurotrash.

NJCardFan
01-31-2010, 09:14 PM
I saw that interview. These people are pathetic. They accuse Fox News and talk radio of spreading misinformation yet these people have turned that into an art form. And when they're called on it, on their own turf yet, they run and hide. Glad to see someone put a moonbat like Amanpoor in her place.

PoliCon
01-31-2010, 09:18 PM
I saw that interview. These people are pathetic. They accuse Fox News and talk radio of spreading misinformation yet these people have turned that into an art form. And when they're called on it, on their own turf yet, they run and hide. Glad to see someone put a moonbat like Amanpoor in her place.

When they do it - it's the truth. :rolleyes:

stsinner
01-31-2010, 10:53 PM
When she was questioned about her professional objectivity, Christiane Amanpour said it all when she was quoted saying,
"There are some situations one simply cannot be neutral about, because when you are neutral you are an accomplice. Objectivity doesn't mean treating all sides equally."
No wonder CNN loses out to FOX.

Although Amanpour is a leftist bitch, are you saying, Marv, that you disagree with the quote from her that sometimes there are issues that you cannot be neutral about? I think she's exactly right and only speaking what intellectually honest people believe..

One topic, for example, is abortion.. I don't try to see the other side of killing an unborn baby, and at no time will I be neutral about it.. There are others, but I didn't want to get into an issues debate, but, rather, just wanted to make sure you meant what you said and considered what she was saying..

NJCardFan
01-31-2010, 11:27 PM
Although Amanpour is a leftist bitch, are you saying, Marv, that you disagree with the quote from her that sometimes there are issues that you cannot be neutral about? I think she's exactly right and only speaking what intellectually honest people believe..

One topic, for example, is abortion.. I don't try to see the other side of killing an unborn baby, and at no time will I be neutral about it.. There are others, but I didn't want to get into an issues debate, but, rather, just wanted to make sure you meant what you said and considered what she was saying..

Bullshit. A journalists job is to give you the story. If you're going to throw your viewpoint in there, fine. Make sure it is accurate. No one is asking anyone to be neutral on a subject 100% of the time but if you feel so strongly about your position you should be able to present enough credible evidence to support your viewpoint without having to distort the subject or make shit up. You're example of abortion is an example in which you miss the point. You can have your view on abortion. That is fine. We probably agree on it. The thing is, when presented with the contrary argument, you shouldn't have to scare someone into being against it by saying that if a girl has an abortion it will prevent her from ever having children again or even kill her too. That's distorting the truth. What Amanpour is doing with the waterboarding argument is distorting the truth by comparing it with the tactics used by the Khmer Rouge which is pure bullshit. The CIA's usage of waterboarding isn't designed to kill the bastard in the end. What Pol Pot's homeboys were doing is extracting then killing the poor bastard anyway. Big difference.

PoliCon
02-01-2010, 06:37 AM
Bullshit. A journalists job is to give you the story. If you're going to throw your viewpoint in there, fine. Make sure it is accurate. No one is asking anyone to be neutral on a subject 100% of the time but if you feel so strongly about your position you should be able to present enough credible evidence to support your viewpoint without having to distort the subject or make shit up. You're example of abortion is an example in which you miss the point. You can have your view on abortion. That is fine. We probably agree on it. The thing is, when presented with the contrary argument, you shouldn't have to scare someone into being against it by saying that if a girl has an abortion it will prevent her from ever having children again or even kill her too. That's distorting the truth. What Amanpour is doing with the waterboarding argument is distorting the truth by comparing it with the tactics used by the Khmer Rouge which is pure bullshit. The CIA's usage of waterboarding isn't designed to kill the bastard in the end. What Pol Pot's homeboys were doing is extracting then killing the poor bastard anyway. Big difference.

well said

Constitutionally Speaking
02-01-2010, 09:47 AM
I have no issue whatsoever with people giving their opinions - AS LONG AS THEY ARE CLEAR that they are giving their OPINIONS.


When they spike stories, that reflect poorly on one side and get out their megaphone on issues that reflect poorly on the other, then I also have a problem.

When they minimize one side of the issue and maximize the other (AGW for instance) then I again have a problem.



Unfortunately it is very difficult to find any news channel that does not consistently violate these tenets.

Fox comes the closest.

The only area where FOX falls down is that they DO minimize some issues and get out a megaphone on others. But that is mild compared to the absolute non coverage other networks give to right wing issues while endlessly harping on left wing talking points.

At least with FOX, I get a chance to hear some very important issues that never even get covered on the other networks, and yet they STILL make sure that all of the other stories the left is pushing get covered. I can watch FOX and get every side of every issue. The left's side is sometimes minimized, but it is at least covered in detail. On the other stations, you would not even know some right wing concerns exist.

marv
02-01-2010, 10:19 AM
Although Amanpour is a leftist bitch, are you saying, Marv, that you disagree with the quote from her that sometimes there are issues that you cannot be neutral about? I think she's exactly right and only speaking what intellectually honest people believe..

That would be true if she were not a reporter, and only did opinion pieces. But she is a billed as a field reporter, so she is not intellectually honest.

stsinner
02-01-2010, 05:23 PM
Bullshit. A journalists job is to give you the story. If you're going to throw your viewpoint in there, fine. Make sure it is accurate. No one is asking anyone to be neutral on a subject 100% of the time but if you feel so strongly about your position you should be able to present enough credible evidence to support your viewpoint without having to distort the subject or make shit up. You're example of abortion is an example in which you miss the point. You can have your view on abortion. That is fine. We probably agree on it. The thing is, when presented with the contrary argument, you shouldn't have to scare someone into being against it by saying that if a girl has an abortion it will prevent her from ever having children again or even kill her too. That's distorting the truth. What Amanpour is doing with the waterboarding argument is distorting the truth by comparing it with the tactics used by the Khmer Rouge which is pure bullshit. The CIA's usage of waterboarding isn't designed to kill the bastard in the end. What Pol Pot's homeboys were doing is extracting then killing the poor bastard anyway. Big difference.

I missed the point about being neutral as a journalist-my bad..

I agree that a journalist should give the story in a neutral manner, but for the most part journalism is dead..

I got caught up in a local political commentator's accurate assessment that being bi-partisan means not having a spine.. Whenever politicians promise to be bi-partisan it means that they're not going to fight for their position, and this is weakness.. One should always stand by their opinions and positions, except, of course, when reporting news or issues to the masses in the process of being a journalist.

stsinner
02-01-2010, 05:23 PM
That would be true if she were not a reporter, and only did opinion pieces. But she is a billed as a field reporter, so she is not intellectually honest.

You're right.. I responded to what I wanted you to say, not what you actually said.. Sorry. In this case, then, I agree with you.

NJCardFan
02-01-2010, 05:44 PM
Reporters are not allowed to have an opinion. Their job is to report. Journalists can have an opinion and so can political commentators. As I said, where the problem lies is when they purposly distort the news. To show how much of a fair guy I am, I'll pick on Fox News. At the 9/12 rally in Washington DX, it was reported that between 75,000 to several hundred thousand attended but for some reason someone thought it was a good idea to use a stock photo from the Promise Keepers rally to show it's magnitude. Shouldn't have done that. There were plenty of honest pics from the day to show like this one:
http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/live912.jpg

If your argument is just, you shouldn't have to make shit up to get your point across and the left is notorius with that. Hell, Gore used a scene from a fictional movie illustrate his GB point in An Inconvenient Truth.