Believe It or Not -- 5 Years Ago Many Top Newspapers Opposed the War
You may be surprised to learn that, precisely five years ago, at least one-third of the top newspapers in this country came out against President Bush taking us to war at that time. Many of the papers may have fumbled the WMD coverage, and only timidly raised questions about the need for war, but when push came to shove five years ago they wanted to wait longer to move against Saddam, or not move at all.
"For apparently the first time in modern history, the U.S. government seems poised to go to war not only lacking the support of many of its key allies abroad but also without the enthusiastic backing of the majority of major newspapers at home," Ari Berman and I wrote at Editor & Publisher on March 19, 2003. Berman had just completed his fifth and (presumably) final prewar survey of the top 50 newspapers' editorial positions.
I have certainly been critical of overall press coverage of the war (see note about my new book below) -- and the editorial writers and pundits largely backed the adventure for years -- but at least there was some sense of protest on the eve of the invasion.
Following Bush's 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on March 17, newspapers took their last opportunity to sound off before the war started. Of the 44 papers publishing editorials about the war, roughly one-third reiterated strong support for the White House, one-third repeated their abiding opposition to it, and the rest -- with further debate now useless -- took a more philosophical approach.
But, in the end, the majority agreed that the Bush administration had badly mishandled the crisis. Most papers sharply criticized Washington's diplomatic efforts, putting the nation on the eve of a pre-emptive war without U.N. Security Council support -- and expressed fears for the future despite an inevitable victory.
Once equivocal editorial pages got straight to the point. "This war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure," The New York Times argued, "Washington's worst in at least a generation. The Bush administration now presides over unprecedented American might. What it risks squandering is not Americans' power, but an essential part of our glory."
Other papers were even more blunt. The Sun of Baltimore, consistently one of the most passionate dissenters on the war, began their editorial with the sentence, "This war is wrong. It is wrong as a matter of principle, but, more importantly, it is wrong as a matter of practical policy."
USA Today asked Bush to finally disclose risks, costs, and democratic government estimates for Iraq while the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wondered "what 'the peaceful entry' of 280,000 troops would look like." The Arizona Republic in Phoenix said that Bush and his "coalition of the willing," with prodding by the French, "have left the United Nations in tatters."
The Houston Chronicle said it remained "unconvinced" that attack was preferable to containment, and The Orange County Register of Santa Ana, Calif., declared it was "unpersuaded" that the threat posed by the "vile" Hussein justified military action now. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News wrote, "War might have been avoided, had the administration been sincere about averting it."
Even a hawkish paper expressed criticism. "The war will be conducted with less support than the cause should have commanded," the Washington Post, in backing the attack, wrote. "The Bush administration has raised the risks through its insistence on an accelerated timetable, its exaggerated rhetoric and its insensitive diplomacy; it has alienated allies and multiplied the number of protestors in foreign capitals."
There was always in the run-up a group of roughly a dozen papers that strongly supported regime change as the only acceptable vehicle toward Iraq's disarmament. They included The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, New York Daily News, Chicago Sun-Times, and Boston Herald. They continued their praise of the president this week and celebrated the fact that "the regime of Saddam Hussein is doomed," as The Kansas City (Mo.) Star put it.
The majority of papers, however, remained deeply troubled by the position the U.S. found itself in. Even large papers such as the Los Angeles Times, The Oregonian in Portland, and Newsday of Melville, N.Y., which have long advocated (or at least accepted) using force to disarm Hussein, criticized their president as he prepared to send young men and women into battle.
"The road to imminent war has been a bumpy one, clumsily traveled by the Bush administration," The Buffalo (N.Y.) News wrote. "The global coalition against terror forged after the atrocities of 9/11 is virtually shattered. The explanation as to why Iraq presents an imminent threat requiring immediate action has not been clear and compelling."
Many papers expressed hopes that a better world could prevail. "So the United States apparently will go to war with few allies and in the face of great international opposition," the L.A. Times said. "This is an uncharted path ... to an uncertain destination. We desperately hope to be wrong in our trepidation about the consequences here and abroad."
Greg Mitchell's new book is "So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundit -- and the President -- Failed on Iraq." It has been hailed by Arianna, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald and others and features a preface by Bruce Springsteen and foreword by Joe Galloway.
Email: gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com
Read more HuffPost coverage and reaction to the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"You may be surprised to learn that, precisely five years ago, at least one-third of the top newspapers in this country came out against President Bush taking us to war at that time."
If your book is only as accurate as this blog 's lede, then I'll take a pass, thank you. This version would be closer to the truth:
You may be surprised to learn that, precisely five years ago, at least one-third of the top newspapers in this country expressed some reservations about President Bush taking us to war at that time.
The difference? Like night and day.
Sir, your backwards glance at that time does not look like how I remember those days and months leading to this ill-fated war. Maybe it's because the only proof you can offer to support your claim that most of the "top newspapers in the country" did not support the invasion are quotes that seem really timid and very nuanced. They do not seem to reflect a strong and clear position against the war. Also, you offer no proof that these supposedly "top newspapers" were matching their editorial concerns with front page stories that really addressed the charges and assertions that the Bushies were making regarding WMD and AQ connections. In short, I don't accept your attempt to try and take the media off the hook. The support you try to advance was not strong and clear and the front page "real" news was just a front for the Bushies' propaganda machine, both factors that most certainly aided and abetted this criminal act done in America's name.
The CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA had all there front pages and there talking heads on Radio and TV. how great this war and how Bush and Chainy were the greatis things since RAGIN, now they say that they were against the WAR. ( I think that they are LYIN again to save there backsides)
Maybe it is just my argumentative nature surfacing, but I see a difference between "opposing" the war and actually doing the journalistic duty of "researching" the claims of the administration and reporting their clear lack of proof of any of the claims being made.
The proof was available. The fact only 1/3 of major newspapers opposed it seems to indicate to my mind that even fewer still were actually RESEARCHING and objectively reporting that the administration's claims were pure fabrication. Anyone can write an opinion. Journalists are supposed to research their writing -- before writing.
Nevertheless, there were at least some who were attempting to be diligent.
So one-third of the top newspapers were against the war. What about the other two-thirds? What about television and radio media?
If the media “experts” are as smart, and as “on top of the news” as they would have us believe, why are we in the mess we’re in?
The media devotes far more time to speculative news than reality news. The media stages verbal “cock fights” between two conflicting sides and then calls itself “fair and balanced.” And far too many of the media exert influence so its "cock" choice will win.
Corporate-owned media exists to influence our thinking on the products we buy, when and where we go to war, who we choose as president, and who that president will put on Supreme Court to protect big business interests.
Take a look at NBC, owned by General Electric. GE gets billions in defense contracts. Why would GE be against war? NBC’s star, Tim Russert, goes wild-eyed over his “gotcha” traps for Democrats. Their hatchet man, Chris Matthews, spews venom, mostly directed at Democrats. Why any organization would use him in an community-service ad attacking “hate” is beyond me.
Is Corporate-control of the American Mind what our Constitution givers had in mind when they gave us the 1st Amendment? How is free speech free when the ones who have the most money have the most power to speak through what once was considered our public-owned airwaves?
Great piece! Am I the only one who sees it as ironic that The Wall Street Journal is such a relentless cheerleader for the Iraq War even though the war is putting the economic stability of the country at risk?
"The explanation as to why Iraq presents an imminent threat requiring immediate action has not been clear and compelling
Not only that but the reasons presented by the current administration were fabricated.
It amazes me that impeachment proceedings have still not occurred and there seems to be no general outrage calling for it!
A lion's share of the most recent excesses of the Bush/Cheney "administration" must fall in Speaker Nancy Pelosi's lap.
When she took it upon herself to declare "impeachment off the table", the upshot of it all was to literally and figuratively issue that gang of gutless, draft dodging, theiving, lying, murdering bastards a carte blanch to continue their unabashed assault on the US Constitution.
In opting for national unity, Speaker Pelosi opened the hen house doors so the wolves could have unimpeded access. If prosecutors around the country declared bank robbery prosecution "off" the table, it's not a reach to imagine that bank robberies just might increase.
I, for one, was thrilled over Mrs Pelosi's ascendancy to the Speakership, but allowing Bush and Cheney to stomp the Constitution to a pulp with complete impunity, has to rank as possibly the most serious blunder in modern American political history. The Constitutional framers put the impeachment clause in that hallowed document for a reason--it was to be utilized whenever governmental officials engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors to remove the guilty from office.
I urge everyone to AGAIN write Nancy Pelosi and demand that she allow a vote on Articles of Impeachment. Realizing that there's precious little time to act, this action needs to be taken immediately. To think that that smarmy gutless pair can get away with out standing trial makes me want to vomit.
And Nancy Pelosi's failure to bring this to a vote makes her an accomplice to their criminality.
Just in case you are not aware of it, check out impeachbus
Wow. It seems that most people posting here are very aware that the media have often laid down like whores and done a huge diservice to the public they supposedly represent. And not just on the war in Iraq but on a whole range of issues going back many years.
I have to say that it puts a little joy in my heart to know this.
A free and honest media is critical to democracy but I guess a job is critical to paying the bills. What to do?
"You may be surprised to learn that, precisely five years ago, at least one-third of the top newspapers in this country came out against President Bush taking us to war at that time."
Not just surprised. Amazed, astounded, astonished, and that's just part of the a's. But let's take a glance at the real world, as it actually was back then. "This war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure," The New York Times argued, or so we are told. But look at the actual editorial which contains those words. For brevity I'll address just that one item.
"There is no ignoring the role of Baghdad's game of cooperation without content in this diplomatic debacle", it goes in to say. In other word's, it's Saddam's fault because he cheated, pretending to cooperate with the inspection process; and it's the rest of the world's fault, for being taken in. "And France, in its zest for standing up to Washington, succeeded mainly in sending all the wrong signals to Baghdad". Translated: It's all the Froggie's fault. They hate us. you know.
Washington of course doesn't escape criticism, but mainly for "its failure to convince most of the world of any imminent danger". Note that the actual absence of any actual imminent danger wasn't a problem. The problem was Washington's failure to convince the rest of the world of the existence of the non-existent threat.
And so, the NYT concludes, "The result is a war for a legitimate international goal against an execrable tyranny, but one fought almost alone". Is any part of that conclusion "against President Bush taking us to war at that time"? Is "legitimate international goal against an execrable tyranny" the sort of phrase you use when you want your nation to pull back from the precipice?
And: "one fought almost alone". Is that phrase designed to demonstrate the wisdom of cooler heads which prevailed elsewhere? On the contrary, it may be paraphrased as "those bastards on the Security Council won't back us up when we need them to. Damn cowards want us to fight their wars for them! Well, those surrender monkeys can spew their defeatism all they like, but us Americans have never shirked our duty to fight the bad guys, even when we're almost alone. So damn the rest of the world, and damn the lily-livered liberal traitors at home, we're going in!"
The preemptive war policy put forth by the Bush administration reminded me very much of the policy of the Japanese that put their planes in the air over Pearl Harbor. If I recall correctly, we prosecuted Tojo et al. for war crimes. The Bushies have put the U.S. in the same position that at Versailles and Nurenburg led to convictions of "war guilt" against the Germans. Thanx alot, Dubya!
Considering that the justification for the war, weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ties to Al Qaida were transparently absurd on the face of it, 1/3 is not nearly good enough.
Like Lewis Black said. I knew the reasons for the war were pure BS. And I didn't even have to leave my couch.
Durango,
Your response was also my own. Not NEARLY GOOD ENOUGH!
Has the war been good for the economy? We are losing here and winning in Iraq? Bush has had his own agenda from day one. If we remove our troops from Iraq too soon, Iran will be in there in two heartbeats. We need a new strategy , Hillary is too wishy washy and don't really have a plan to remove troops from anywhere. Iran is the major terrorist player in the area. They fund the insurgents, and supply them even tho there own economy is non existent. Face it after we figure out how to get along with out oil they will have nothing to fight over any more, except maybe the occasional Muhammed cartoon. They will all go back to there primitive sand boxes and fight amongst each other the way they have since recorded time. And in two or three generations of being a third world country they will awaken and realize that the world has moved on and left them. A world dominated by Islam would be a step back in time. Thousands of years. about the time most congressmen were first elected.
It's always nice to see enlightened commentary about other cultures.
A small handful of candles in the wind. Overall, the U.S. press has disgraced itself, picking its own navel lint and scratching its collective head while a war criminal ran amok, killing hundreds of thousands of innocents and causing the U.S. to displace the old Soviet Union for the title of Biggest Thug On The Block.
... and, ironically, in the same region where the Soviets last claimed the title before being run out by the locals.
Gutenberg is spinning in his grave.
The first Gulf war should never have taken place (we didn't have a dog in that fight) since George the First gave his blessing to Saddam's armed aggression against Kuwait when he authorized Ambassador April Glaspie to switch on the green light during the summer of 1990 (her exact words to Saddam, "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."). Her instructions came from Secretary of State James Baker (the entire transcript of the conversation was printed in Newsweek and published in the United States if anyone happened to be interested in getting the facts, but you can still read it with a Google search as quoted above.)
In the summer of 1990, gasoline sold for under a dollar a gallon in Sacramento, California, at the corner of Fulton and Marconi. However, the Bushies were in the oil business, and a dollar gallon doesn't add to the billionaire estate whereas four dollar a gallon gas helps big time!
Gulf War II represents nothing more than armed aggression against an innocent people who did nothing to the United States to merit a devastating assault responsible for the deaths of more than a million people (40% children), the destruction of billions of dollars worth of homes, infrastructure (water, sewer, electric power), displacement of two million people (made refugees), the termination of
basic essential needs (doctors, nurses, hospitals, schools), and creation of a puppet government required to live in the Green Zone or be assassinated (the bush should make accommodations now for all the puppets and their families to come to America after our military ends its illegal occupation).
George the First setup Saddam Hussein, and had his "splendid little war" against a pitifully weak opponent as his blitzkrieg tore through the paper tiger in forty-one days (41). Supposedly, eighty percent of the American people approved of George First's going to war. (In Germany in 1939, more than ninety-five percent of the German people approved of Hitler's attack against Poland. There's something fascinating about fascism and its glorification of war. Very much like a moth's propensity to fly into a candle's flame)
McCain's solution: have another Hundred Years' War (the first one actually extended a little longer than 100 years: 1337 to 1453). America needs a retread soldier to give us 100 years of prosperity--for the rich folks--and a grave for our warriors.
We have exotic war toys our military has to use; you cannot store them; they rust; you must deploy them (what do you do with 15,000 nuclear bombs? You explode 'em!). How much longer will we allow the tail to wag the dog? One trillion a year for military and nothing to fix in America!
This is one of the best posts I've read here. It really brings home how easily misled we are by the broader media, and how, while some in the media may discaim, it's more like they are narrating rather than instructing.
I’m tired of being warned about something by 1/3rd of the media, while the other 2/3rds – left and right – are parroting disinformation that only serves to make us feel we have no say.
I’m tired of learning the truth after the fact when it’s supposedly too late to matter. Too late for who? The truth still matters and the media need to be held accountable for their role as enablers.
pmag88,
yes, this is a very solid, well-informed post. Good job, Spider53.
I'm curious as to why some people can post such long posts while others are chopped off at 350 words. Does anybody know the answer to that?
HuffPost's Pick
So, we learn that 5 years ago some newspapers were against the Iraq war - what's new about that? 40 years ago, we saw US policy use the technique of "hold your finger to the wind and see which way its blowing" with Lyndon Johnson, trying to placate the Press instead of showing the courage to lead the country, to hell with the Press.
Ever since the Vietnam War was forced to a conclusion as a loss by newspaper and television "journalists" twisting facts, lying, misrepresenting and printing half-truths, they begin salivating every time a Christian story, a war story, any unLiberal story raised its head. In their attempt to run domestic and foreign policy by casual plebscites called "polls" the Press has tried to bring back those heady days when it forced a President to not seek another term and bring pressure upon ultimately spineless politicians.
Of course the US has not had an honest, constructive President since Harry Truman (Carter was honest but halfwitted - every death in the Middle East since 1978 should be laid at his door for handing over Iran to jihadist Moslems).
65 years ago, a number of newspapers were clucking about getting out of the 2nd World War, which was "killing our sons and wasting our fortune."
I know history is not the forte of Liberals, so lets just go back 5 years again, like Mitchell (apparently 5 years is as far back as Liberals can remember), to the "potential hate" being generated by Mel Gibson who was making a movie about Jesus that will spark anti-Semitic detestation against Jews - something that never materialized, but sincerely hoped for by Liberals who could care less about Jews or Christians.
Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, was paid off by Gibson to make periodic rants against "The Passion of the Christ" just to keep the controversy going. Foxman's complaints went far in getting people to the theatre to see the film - and no reprisals took place against Jews ... much to the sorrow of the Press - although Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles and most the rest of the Catholic bishops shut their mouths tight, retusing to support the film. But then the liberal Cardinal Mahony, to use Theodore Roosevelt's descriptive phrase, has no more backbone than a chocolate eclair.
The purpose of a free press is to report truth - accurately - while leaving opinions for the editorial page. It is definitely the job of the Press to hold the nose of the government to the grindstone and make sure that corruption and falsehood is brought to light.
But our Press is part of the establishment and has lost its authenticity.
Washington is FULL of corruption, as Barak Obama not only admitted yesterday, but which he promised to clear out. Why aren't newspapers investigating the lobbyists - such as the apostles of the new Environmental Religion (which is just a new wrinkle of the old Gnostic-Ma
The Press knows about Washington's lies and corruption - but it is part of the problem.
So the Press has failed us. As long as Liberals run the Press it will fail us.
As long as Conservatives run the Press it will fail us.
Only when the Press can divorce itself from agenda and ideology will it be of service to the Republic.
I can't believe this post has a checkmark on it. It's way too long and only makes one statement worth writing or reading: "Only when the Press can divorce itself from agenda and ideology will it be of service to the Republic."
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
