5 Years Ago: When Media 'Zombies' Helped Bush Go To War

Next week, we will mark the fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Amazingly, at this late date, we still have 150,000 troops there, and nine U.S. troops were killed just yesterday. So it is vital to refresh our memories on how the American media helped grease the path to war.

On March 6, 2003, less than two weeks before he ordered the country to war, President Bush conducted a nationally televised press conference, stating in his intro, "We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Some of the questions from the press were sharp, many others weak, but one asking about his religious strength gave him an opportunity to say, "My faith sustains me because I pray daily. I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength.... But it's a humbling experience to think that people I will never have met have lifted me and my family up in prayer. And for that I'm grateful."

It was the mood of the affair that was most noteworthy. Bush smiled and made his usual quips, and many of the reporters played the game and did not press him hard. This was how these press gatherings had gone throughout the run-up to war. But this meeting was heavily scripted with Bush looking at a slip of paper and calling on reporters in a pre-arranged order. No one challenged him on this.

When it was over, I asked Ari Berman, then an intern with Editor & Publisher and now a talented veteran at The Nation, to come up with a few questions we wished reporters had asked that night. I added a few myself, and published them at our site, under the heading, "Questions We Wish They'd Asked."

Some of reporters at the press conference appeared to have some second thoughts themselves. ABC's Terry Moran said the president was not "sufficiently challenged" and that reporters ended up "looking like zombies."

Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times explained, "We were very deferential" because "it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there...on prime-time live television asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war." She admitted that "no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

Here are most of the unasked questions that Berman and I put together then (and included in my book So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq).

"Questions We Wish They'd Asked"

-- Why is the U.S. threatening an optional war if 59% of Americans do not support a U.S. invasion without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, according to a Feb. 24-26 USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll?

-- If our allies have the same information on WMD -- and the Iraqi threat is so real -- why do some of our friends refuse to take part in your coalition?

-- You praise the Iraqi people, say we have no quarrel with them, pledge to save them from the dictator and give them democracy. Would you tell us how many of them are likely to die in this war?

-- You say one major reason for taking this action is to protect Americans from terrorism. How do you respond to the warnings of CIA Director George Tenet and others that invading Iraq would in fact likely increase terrorism?

-- Rather than make us wait for a supplemental budget request -- after the war has been launched -- to tell us what it (and its aftermath) will cost, don't you think the American people, who will pay the bill, deserve to know the latest long-term estimates before the fact?

--You say Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and is evil enough to use them. If not during an American invasion of his country, then when? How many deaths on our side do you expect?

-- Why, if North Korea has the capability to produce six nuclear warheads by mid-summer, are you letting their very reluctant neighbors take the lead in deterring them while demanding that the U.S. take charge in confronting Saddam?

-- With the economy shaken and deficits climbing, how do you respond to critics who say you're ignoring domestic issues and the long-term economic security of this country by focusing so much of your time and resources on Iraq?

-- Why did the U.S. edit the 12,000 page Iraqi weapons report (as recently revealed) to the U.N. Security Council, removing all names of U.S. companies that sold weapons materials to the Iraqis in the past?

-- You claimed tonight that Iraq has started producing new missiles -- but are these nothing more than less capable versions (fully permitted by the U.N.) of the missiles being destroyed now?

-- How do you respond to radio commentator Daniel Schorr's statement that the "coalition of the willing" is actually a "coalition of the billing"?

Greg Mitchell ([e-mail]) is editor of Editor & Publisher and his new book is currently excerpted at Salon.

I blog at:

http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/

Comments

[sawbuck]

Another question: Why are you continuing to assert there are weapons of mass destruction when the weapons inspectors have stated otherwise? Hans blixt, Scott Ritter, David Kay, all asserted that they were unable to find any evidence of wmds, even with the cooperation of iraqi scientists.
The whole thing was bullshit from the start, and the people associated with this from the white house on down would resign if they had any shred of honor.

[AnotherTry]

If your government will look the other way while planes are flown into buildings, what might they do to pesky journalists?

The silence was not only about the bottom line. It was about fear.

[BlackbirdHighway]

It's not just that they didn't ask the questions, others were asking real questions and press didn't cover it, and even suppressed coverage of the questions being asked.

There was a huge demonstration against the plan to go to war. In the old days, when 10s of thousands of people march in Washington to oppose something, the Washington Post would cover it on the front page, with photos, and multiple stories. This demonstration only got a tiny blurb deep inside the paper.

Sen. Ted Kennedy gave an impashioned speech in the Senate, saying the evidence from the Bush administration wasn't right, and that the decision to go to war was wrong. the Washington Post mentioned it in only one vague sentence deep inside another pro-war story. There were many very pro-war articles in the WaPo and other papers at that time.

They didn't just fail to ask questions, they suppressed those who DID ask questions.

Greg Mitchell makes it sound like the press was just lazy, in fact they were very actively promoting the war.

[uberlefty]

The media complicity came long before March 6 2003. It started months before with " Crisis in Iraq" coverage on all the network news. It started with the media agreeing to embedded reporters. It started when the media realized how profitable war coverage was. The media has as much blood on their hands as the Bush administration and congress. They failed to challenge the " Conventional Wisdom" of preemptive war. They have given this administration a walk on all national security issues. Mr. Mitchells claim that the press were zombies is far to kind. They are somewhere between perpetrators and accomplices but not zombies.

[MizJ]

Why did they not put the questions out there that demanded to be asked: just look at the group gathered on Saturday night, the annual Press Club banquet or something, where those there applauded and laughed at Bush's lame antics. They are all members of one big club: they dine, party, vacation, barbecue together and no one is going to rock the boat. It is people like Bill Moyers, not a member of this club, who we look to for the truth.

[Shaddup]

And five years later not much in the U.S. media has changed.

[hillpill]

It's only gotten more consolidated and more embedded.

[MikeDu]

I'm reminded of the TV news reporter would, after being handed a piece of paper informing him of the plane going into the World Trade Center tower, did a happy little jig not realising he was on-camera. For the networks a nice little Iraq war meant ratings going through the roof! To question the president's motives would've been equivalent to shooting the networks' bottom line in the foot. Besides, if was all based on lies (as it obviously was even then) the resulting controvercy would guaranteee news outlets stellar ratings for years to come.

[sfbayani]

And don't forget the legislators who voted for the war -
and that includes Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain.
They have blood in their hands!

[seawolf77]

I wouldn't piss on anybody STUPID enough to call me unpatriotic. Anyone who thinks they know what patriotism is can write a book, publish it, send it to me, I'll throw it in the trash and laugh. To the Hannity and Limbaugh's of the world...yawn.

[cynara]

These question seem so ridiculously obvious. Private citizens, myself included, were asking these questions at the time, why not the press?

[angeranddespair]

woulda, shoulda, coulda, The Fourth Estate has the blood of all our Murdered and Maimed soldiers on their hands, as well as all the blood of all the murdered and maimed uncounted Iraqis ...because they don't count. (by the way that blood ain't ever washing off.) The Media, main stream and otherwise stood lock step with this Lying administration repeated the lies, upon lies upon lies, until they became the truth, repeated and sanctioned at every turn by the media. Tell us again why did we invade a country that never attacked us? None of the 9/11 criminals were from Iraq. Hers is another question for the media to ask; Why are we not in prison as accomplices? If someone lies (lets say President Bush) to get permission to commit a crime are not all the auxiliary events that happen under the commission of that crime also criminal? The murder and theft of an innocent countries people - men, women, children, and theft of their culture, arts, natural resources and livelihood. Hey you all in the Media take a hard look at the Invasion and Occupation you allowed and fostered to happen. Don't forget your glorious march up the middle of Iraq bombing her to smithereens while you were embedded(in bed with) the most corrupt lying administration ever.

[desmirl]

No one wanted to ask questions because no one wanted to look UNPATRIOTIC. Those of us who were writing letters to the editor of our local paper, who were calling the local talk radio stations and objecting to the war were labeled 'traitors' and worse. Sometimes, taking an unpopular stand is the only way to stop the HYSTERIA!