Ten years ago today, Colin Powell made the Bush administration’s case for going to war against Iraq. Much of what he said about Iraq’s threats to the United States was false. But the media coverage gave the opposite impression, and most of the pundits and journalists who promoted the justifications for the war paid no price for their failures.
As FAIR reported at the time, even before the Powell address there were reasons to be skeptical of the administration’s claims. On February 4, 2003, FAIR published “Iraq’s Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact,” which made the point that “it has not been demonstrated that Iraq continues to hold unconventional weapons.” FAIR criticized coverage like that of the New York Times (2/2/03), which asserted that “nobody seriously expected Mr. Hussein to lead inspectors to his stash of illegal poisons or rockets, or to let his scientists tell all.”
As the FAIR release concluded:
The media convey to the public the impression that the alleged banned weapons on which the Bush administration rests its case for war are known to exist, and that the question is simply whether inspectors are skillful enough to find them.
Powell’s address was instrumental in pushing a faulty media line on Iraq’s WMDs further. That much was clear in the coverage right after his appearance at the United Nations, as FAIR documented on February 10 in “A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage.”
In Andrea Mitchell‘s report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell’s allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: “Powell played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and a model of Iraq’s unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles.”
Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03), shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts: “Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens of thousands of liters of anthrax. He showed how Iraqi jets could spray that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new weapons.” The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell “showed” to be actually operating.
Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the possibility that Powell could be doubted: “No one disputes the findings Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to disarm.” When CNN‘s Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq’s response to Powell’s speech thusly: “You’ve got to understand that most Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick to their stomach. Which was it for you?”
If you turn to FAIR’s “Iraq and the Media: A Critical Timeline” (3/19/07), you see that February 6 Washington Post op-ed page had Mary McGrory writing: “I don’t know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell’s ‘J’accuse’ speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.” She added that she “heard enough to know that Saddam Hussein, with his stockpiles of nerve gas and death-dealing chemicals, is more of a menace than I had thought.”
And Richard Cohen (2/6/03) announced that the debate was over:
The evidence he presented to the United Nations—some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail—had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool—or possibly a Frenchman—could conclude otherwise.
Obviously, the fools and Frenchmen were correct. And as FAIR documented, independent-minded journalists were reporting that some of the administration’s claims did not stand up to scrutiny. The Associated Press had a detailed look at the state of Iraq intelligence on January 18. The skepticism and good judgment of those reporters (and others) should have been the rule, not the exception, if journalists had been doing their jobs.
But most journalists did a different job. And most of them faced no consequences whatsoever for being so disastrously wrong.
There’s an unsubtle difference between “getting it wrong”
And “going along”.
We either have to conclude that these “journalists” were at some level complicit in their unquestioning coverage of blatant gummint propaganda
Or they had quite a few faulty synapses in dire need of repair.
The fact that mea culpas aren’t flowing now like the bilgewater gushing from Powell’s lips then makes a compelling case for the former, to my mind
As does the fact that not a damn thing has changed in the intervening decade.
It’s a shame you can’t bet the house on their continued corruptability.
It could keep a lot of folks from losing theirs.
Saying they “paid no price” and “faced no consequences” is just sugar-coating the truth:
Relaying the lies and obscuring the truth wasn’t a mistake, it was policy.
No one got punished for doing their jobs just they way they were supposed to do them? No kidding!
Excellent post. Most of the current crop of talk show hosts are water carriers for the super-rich, and FAIR should hold their feet to the fire more often.
I am with Earwig, the whole media isn’t going to apologize for anything because they did nothing wrong in their eyes.
No one, not even FAIR expects them to tell the Truth, not when they have products to sell. And how many times has FAIR pointed out they blured the lines between News and Entertainment. But they didn’t just blur the line between entertainment and news, they annihilated any possible standards for objectively measuring the two, to the point of making it an new compound., False Infotainment. it is not expect nor desired that it be truthful, just no one thinks about it being lies, so it does so without shame.
Good post, but:
1. Should say more about the skeptical AP story. You’re presumably referring to Charles J. Hanley — but should name names.
2. “Where Are They Now? The Reporters Who Got Iraq So Wrong”
suggests an update on the miscreants (likely promoted, getting more money & prestige, etc.). But you don’t offer that info, though you do name a few who got it wrong.
Scott Ritter, former Marine turned weapons inspector spoke the nearest to the truth and was silenced by the media.
Oh well, press reporters have been reduced to stenographers. Truth has given way to opinion. We all know “opinions” are like armpits, we all have at least a couple.
Maybe I should shut up, but so far all the comments here say in essence what I meant to say above. There are some truly despicable columnists and commentators out there — jingoistic, climate-change denying, gun loving economic illiterates who support the nihilists of our dysfunctional government. These people should be held accountable by all of us, and certainly by FAIR.
I don’t think FAIR comes down nearly hard enough on these individuals, and the new FAIR format, combining various recent media outrages in a TV show, diffuses the contributions of individual journalists to America’s growing fascism and makes it harder to comment on any one offender.
I am tempted to name some of these people — major network talk-show hosts and frequent guests, and certain columnists for the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other major print media. But that would be off topic, and in any case you — and we — know who they are.
I have to note that, like some of the others in the comments, I really would love to see a comprehensive take on this topic. This article is a good start, but definitely leaves you wanting more.
Lawrence Wilkersen ( former chief of staff for Colin Powell ) has admitted to being a BUBBLE-HEAD just like the rest of the Bush II
admin. re.Iraq. Wilkersen said this to help mitigate his lack of knowledge about W.M.D.s. The dog ate his homework. He is honorable
but was in the clouds when it came to doing his due diligence in questioning the propaganda.
Thanks for the update, and keeping everyone honest here. Let’s don’t forget the “liberal media” aka NY Times, others, their editorials boards and “reporting” which turned out to be inaccurate. What strange times those were.. Basic questioning of the Administeation or Gov’t positions & policies often resulted in name calling and people claiming that “questioning” was a form of weakness.
Still considering It “Game Day” ; ArNot!
So how do you hold anyone accountable? Have them spend the rest of their lives taking care of some horribly injured American soldier? How about just one day without a leg or a face?
Even though Colin Powell, Andrea Mitchell, Dan Rather, and others speculated that Saddam Hussein would be killing thousands with anthrax, the five Americans who died of anthrax inhalation in fall 2001 were either journalists or postal workers who were infected by anthrax mailed within the U. S. (Anthrax was also sent to Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.) Interestingly, among the first to declare that Saddam Hussein was probably behind these attacks (which have never been conclusively solved) were the Wall Street Journal and John McCain, both of whom are always in favor of bombing America’s enemies.
The article leaves out the NY Times and Judith Miller, the worst of the bunch.
Why did you leave out one of the worst liars, namely, Ms. Judith Miller of the NYT?
I guess that being the scientist that I am- I was skeptical from the beginning of the push to attack Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Using just the internet I was able to follow the trail of the war hawks (Neocons) like Richard Perle to “A Clean Break” and then to the letters written by these hawks to then President Clinton calling for regime change in Iraq (1998). Likewise I knew that Hussein had no capacity for nuclear weapons because of the Israeli Raid on the Osirak Nuclear Reactor (1981 and then in 1991). It was patently clear to me then that Bush’s invasion was based entirely on deception (lies) and the chaos following Terrible Tuesday (9/11)- My best friend’s son was a Marine in the Pentagon that fateful morning.
Every journalist who is still referring to the illegitimate invasions and occupations as “wars” is complicit.
There is a more basic and profound question all of these reporters failed to ask:
Given that we faced off with the Soviet Union, a country that had as many or more nukes than use for decades, with both countries reluctant to pull the trigger knowing it would result in the complete annihilation of their own country in retaliation, why should we be afraid of Iraq using WMD against us or even Israel when the best case scenario is they might take out a city or two on our end with the attack, but the retaliation would burn their entire country off the map?
Saddam Hussein may have been a brutal, evil dictator, but he was not stupid or suicidal.
Even George Tenet was forced to admit to the Senate before the war that Saddam would be reluctant to use WMD or give them to terrorist to use unless he was under attack and in eminent danger of being overthrown or killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/09TTEX.html
Well if you really need to beat that decade old dead horse……Those reporters are doing now what they did then.Relying on information that comes from those in the know.Bush and most of the worlds intel believed Saddams ruse as he lied and threatened people with what he wanted the world to believe he still had……wmds.He played the game and lost big time.If the Russians threatened nuclear attack and we launched first….only to find out the Russians got rid of all their nukes years ago…..it would be the height of folly.Man kinds.But to blame the reporters for cycling the only information available?Or General Powel?Nope not buying it.I blame Saddam 100%.Today the press allows Obama to get away with every ploy….when the information is everywhere that he is failing on every level.THAT I do blame them for.If Obama says Iran has a nuke someday soon….I would expect (since he is the only holder of that info)that they give him the benefit of the doubt.But when the president says the economy is improving as he did before the election…well any economists can punch holes in that till nothing is left of the statement.Or when he says he did what was necessary in the Bengazi debacle….how does that square with him SLEEPING through it?He did NOTHING!!!!!!!That they should cover and investigate.All day….every day.As far as Iraq the whole idea that WMDs did not exist anymore,and that that was the only reason for the war is idiotic .Hitler telegraphed every attack he ever made in Mien Kampf years before he made them.Everyone ignored his threats.His building and obtaining weapons systems not allowed under the terms of Germanys surrender,Saddam threatened often… and declared his surrender document null and void.Even on his “deathbed” he obstinately defended his right to re-arm in ANY way he saw fit .Without ANY constrictions.He told truths, half truths, and lies about the weapons systems he had in place to keep everyone guessing and off balance.He played a dangerous game.Both he and Bin Laden later claimed stunned surprise that any president of the US would call their bluff and come a knockin.After 911 Bush was that man.So you monday morning quarterbacks ,safe in your beds ,without even a modem of responsibility for this countries survival are not even a pimple on the ass of the man who made the call.
Dan Rather should have known better,m the truth is, War is a Badge of Ho9nor and looks great on media resume’s and it’s great for selling advertising because of ratings.
The media in America has completely failed in it;’s primary objective, to fulfill it’s part of the social contract, to keep citizens informed and appraised of truth in governance, local, regional, and world events. They kowtowed and actively participated in propaganda, they asked softball questions, and ignored glaring misinformation that was there3 for anyone to see.
Rupert Murdoch seeks to harm America through media misinformation so as to make Australia stronger. A weaker America gives rise to a stronger Australia in the booming Asian economy. WHY do we allow a foreign spy to won HALF of US Media?
Dan Rather should have known better, the truth is, war is a Badge of Honor and looks great on a media yackity-yack resume’ and it’s great for selling advertising because of ratings.
The media in America has completely failed in it’s primary objective; to fulfill it’s part of the social contract, to keep citizens informed and appraised of truth in governance, local, regional, and world events. They kowtowed and actively participated in propaganda, they asked softball questions, and ignored glaring misinformation that was there for anyone to see.
Rupert Murdoch seeks to harm America through media misinformation so as to make Australia stronger. A weaker America gives rise to a stronger Australia in the booming Asian economy. WHY do we allow a foreign spy (a proven hacker!) to won HALF of US Media? Are we farking STUPID?
Quick updates pulled from Wikipedia for those that are curious.
Andrea Mitchell is an American television journalist, anchor, reporter and commentator for NBC News based in Washington, D.C.. She is the NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, and reported on the 2008 Race for the White House for NBC News broadcasts, including NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, Today, and MSNBC. She anchors Andrea Mitchell Reports airing at 1pm–2pm ET weekdays on MSNBC, has appeared on and guest hosted Meet the Press, and is often a guest on Hardball with Chris Matthews and The Rachel Maddow Show.
Dan Rather is now managing editor and anchor of the television news magazine Dan Rather Reports on the cable channel AXS TV. Rather became embroiled in controversy about a disputed news report involving President George W. Bush’s Vietnam-era service in the National Guard and subsequently left CBS Evening News in 2005, and he left the network altogether after 43 years in 2006.
William (Bill) Schneider is an American journalist. Currently he serves as CNN’s senior political analyst and Distinguished Senior Fellow & Resident Scholar at Third Way, a Washington think tank. Schneider is also serving as the Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor at George Mason University’s School of Public Policy.
Richard Cohen is an American syndicated columnist for the Washington Post. He is a four-time Pulitzer Prize finalist in the “Commentary” category. Cohen was originally a supporter of the Iraq War, and publicly supported the Bush administration in several other high profile instances. Cohen has since expounded upon his former views of support for the Iraq War, and his later stance against it.
The greatest one of all is missing: Judith Miller of the NYT. It was her articles that were cited by Powell and Cheney as concrete evidence of WMD, etc., and the NYT would later say that 10 of the 12 articles about Iraq that were factually incorrect or misleading were written by her, and she was let go.
I just thank goodness the world got past the inevitable confrontation with Saddam and accomplished regime change in Iraq, the region dodged a major bullet by the late-better-than-never intervention.
Hang these folks for genocide!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DCwafIntj0
at President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic “A” 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.
Why viewers still use to peruse news papers while among this technological world everything namely accessible on web?
I am sensitive of learning Flash,namely there any paragraph associated to Flash,whether entire right,afterward beguile post it, thanks.