The only problem is, as I was recently told, it's been pretty heavily edited. A whopping 34 paragraphs -- over 900 words -- were cut from the CNN copy, but visible in the BBC transcript.
Among these paragraphs were such indicators of Iraq's cooperation as creating their own inspection commission (led by the former minister of oil) and their passing of new legislation to aid the UN inspectors, and signs of flaws in the intelligence reports given to the United Nations. Also included were reports of interviews conducted in Baghdad, and reports that those who refused would consent if they were given a copy of the interview or were allowed to have an official present.
It worries me that so large a chunk of the transcript was cut from the CNN copy of the transcript without any indication of such editing. Were I not told of these changes, I doubt I would have known that they had ever occurred.
Or was that the idea? Was CNN maybe hoping to sneak their edited view of history under the radar of the American populace, sending the support for the war on Iraq higher? Or was it simple editorial incompetence, and nothing more?
I fear we may never know.
