Framing Michael Moore

By Joel Bleifuss, In These Times. Posted June 29, 2004.

What do Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Michael Moore have in common? They have all fallen victim to Michael Isikoff's poison pen.

In the June 28 Newsweek, Isikoff dismissed Fahrenheit 9/11 as "a mélange of investigative journalism, partisan commentary and conspiracy theories." He goes on to dispute three of what he calls "Moore's most provocative allegations," thereby leading the unsuspecting reader to wonder what else Moore has fabricated. More on that later. First some history about Isikoff's own "mélange of investigative journalism, partisan commentary and conspiracy theories."

In April 1989, John Kerry's Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations released an exhaustive report that concluded that the Contras were involved in drug trafficking and that Reagan administration officials were aware of that involvement.

In an April 14, 1989, Washington Post article, Isikoff trivialized the report's findings and asserted that claims of drug trafficking by high-level contras "could not be substantiated." Subsequently Newsweek's "Conventional Wisdom Watch" dubbed Kerry "a randy conspiracy buff."

The Post had nothing more to say on the subject until the fall of 1991, when Gen. Manuel Noriega went to trial on drug-trafficking charges in Miami. Isikoff then wrote: "Allegations that the federal government worked with known drug dealers to arm the contras have been raised for years, but congressional investigations in the late 1980s found little evidence to back charges that it was an organized activity approved by high-level U.S. officials."

That assertion was soon contradicted by the U.S. government's own witnesses against Noriega. In October 1991, Floyd Carlton Caceres testified that his smuggling operation flew U.S. guns to the contras in Nicaragua and brought cocaine into the United States on the return flight. However, federal Judge William Hoeveler, sustaining all objections from U.S. prosecutors, refused to allow Noriega's defense lawyer to press Caceres further on the subject. At one point, Hoeveler snapped, "Just stay away from it."

And in November 1991, convicted Colombian drug lord and government witness Carlos Lehder told the court that an unnamed U.S. official offered to allow him to smuggle cocaine into the United States in exchange for use of a Bahamian island that he owned as part of the contra supply route. Lehder went on to testify that the Colombian cartel had donated about $ 10 million to the contras.

At this point, the Post finally took notice. "The Kerry hearings didn't get the attention they deserved at the time," its editorial concluded. "The Noriega trial brings this sordid aspect of the Nicaraguan engagement to fresh public attention." The Post editorial writer, might have added, "Indeed, our own reporter Michael Isikoff let us down."

Isikoff did a number on Bill and Hilary Clinton promoting the Whitewater Scandal. In a series of Post stories in late 1993 and early 1994, Isikoff, citing unnamed sources, offered ominous-sounding revelations about bureaucratic maneuvers ("Justice Department officials are moving forward with two separate inquiries that have been expanded") and unsubstantiated speculation from more unnamed sources ("Bill and Hillary Clinton 'could possibly have benefited from the alleged scheme.' " )The press followed suit, and a publicly funded $52 million investigation turned up nothing.

In the '90s, Isikoff was also one of Washington's leading smutrakers. He had been hot in search of a smoking presidential penis since 1994, when he was suspended from the Post after a dispute with his editors concerning his over-zealous flogging of Paula Jones' dubious claims against President Clinton.

Joel Bleifuss is the editor of In These Times, where he has worked as an investigative reporter, columnist and editor since 1986.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »