Shuster Scores the Blakeman-Corn Smackdown

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Elsewhere on this site, I detail the run-in I had with GOP pundit Brad Blakeman last week. During a joint MSNBC appearance, Blakeman misrepresented why George W. Bush launched the Iraq War, claiming Bush did so because Saddam Hussen had refused to allow weapons inspections. On air, I noted this was completely wrong—UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq before the war—and tried to bet him $1,000 on this point. Two days later, Blakeman used the Fox News website to blast me and MSNBC anchor David Shuster and misrepresented the bet. That is, he was twice ensnared in his own web of false spin. But don’t take my word for it. On Friday afternoon, Shuster, who moderated that segment, weighed in and pronounced an unambiguous verdict. Here’s his take:

We love vigorous debates and discussions on this program. But facts are important. And so, in my notebook item today, I’d like to settle a dispute over facts that came up earlier this week. Two of my guests, David Corn and Brad Blakeman got into a heated argument over a crucial part of the 2003 run-up to the Iraq war.

Blakeman: President Bush did not bring us into this war because of W-M-D. He brought us into this war.

Corn: What?

Blakeman: Because Saddam Hussein failed to allow inspections of the sites the UN demanded be inspected.

Corn: Brad, you are absolutely wrong. The inspectors were in for months before the war.

Blakeman: Come on David.

Corn: I’ll bet you a thousand dollars. A thousand dollars the inspectors were there.

Brad Blakeman did not take him up on the bet. And that was wise because a dozen newspaper accounts from 2003, three colleagues at fact-check organizations, and even my office mate Pat Buchanan agree the facts are indisputable and that David Corn was right. UN inspectors were in Iraq and got unfettered access to whatever site they wanted from November 27,2002, until March 18, 2003.

Here’s a photo from a March 2003 inspection of the Al Rashid missile site southeast of Baghdad.

The reason the inspectors left Iraq, as USA Today reported at the time, is because the Bush administration told the UN team on March 17 to pull out “for their own safety.” The war started March 20.

It’s clear the Bush administration, at the time, thought Saddam Hussein was playing games because the inspectors weren’t finding anything. But as we know, that’s because there was nothing to find. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

For a guest to claim on our air we went to war because the inspectors weren’t allowed to various sites and because the inspectors weren’t allowed in Iraq in 2003—that is false.

Let this be a lesson to everyone that comes on this program. Facts matter. The truth matters. And as long as I am your host, I’ll do everything possible to give you, the viewer, reporting and debates based on the facts, no matter where it may lead us.

Now can Shuster collect the thousand bucks for me?

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate