Posted by James O. Goldsborough on November 22, 2002 at 10:52:37:
John,
John,
Sometime soon, when the war with Iraq has turned out badly, someone in the media will ask the question: Did we do our job informing Americans what they were getting into?
The soul searching always comes post facto. By 1971, it was too late to undo the Vietnam damage. But what if we had known sooner?
Known what, you ask?
The truth about the war. The Pentagon Papers revealed that the Johnson administration had been lying to the people, lying about the progress of the war and the reasons for pursuing it. The Nixon administration, which was not even the subject of the Pentagon Papers, would self-destruct trying to suppress the documents.
Governments going to war suppress the facts.
The media have never excelled in warning about wars, but this time they have surpassed themselves, becoming a co-conspirator in making "regime change" in Iraq seem as natural a thing as a change of seasons. For television, war boosts ratings. As war with Iraq comes closer, ever more viewers will hang on those half-hourly news breaks, raking in the advertisers.
Little the administration says on Iraq is challenged by the media. Just as President Johnson was not challenged on Vietnam until it was too late, President Bush gets a free ride.
Examples: Bush charged that Iraq had unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." Bush lied.
Bush said the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iraq was "six months away from developing a n (atomic) weapon." Bush lied.
Bush says Iraq is linked to al-Qaeda. He has no evidence. Bush says Saddam Hussein will obtain nuclear weapons, and if he obtains them he will use them. Intelligence sources say the embargo on Iraq will prevent Iraq from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Above all, there is no challenge of Bush's assertion that regime change in Iraq is a necessary thing.
The constant war drumbeat has the intended effect. Americans tend to believe their presidents unless the watchdog gives them reasons not to. This time the watchdog is asleep.
"Give the president what he wants," "a united front," "stand against terrorism," these were the messages from Congress in its Iraq resolution. Had Congress offered reasoned dissent, the watchdog might have barked.
The media, too, wear patriotic blinders.
Let's be clear about patriotism: It is acting in the best interests of the nation, not blind allegiance to a leader. If one believes that war with Iraq is bad for the nation and supports that belief with sound examples drawn from experience, then patriotism is speaking out, not remaining silent.
Once the war is over, legions of reporters will be unleashed to challenge official explanations and examine "what went wrong." Prior to the fighting, however, little gets challenged or investigated.
Turn on CNN or Fox these days, and it's all war. There is Bush, there is Rumsfeld, there are troops leaving for the Gulf, there are planes on bombing runs, someone on anthrax, someone on Saddam's past tricks, and so on.
The administration has manipulated the media into accepting its assumptions about an unjustified war. A "coalition" will exist; war will be short; the Israelis won't shoot; the Turks will provide bases; the Kurds and Shiites promise not to break away; a U.S. military governor will take over; Iraq will become democratic; the Arab street will remain quiet; terrorism will be contained; oil will flow; etc.
Don't swallow it. The President has lied to us too many times.
This is a manufactured war. Like the Spanish-American War, it will be forever stamped: "made in the USA." It fails the fundamental test of a just war. Americans will be far worse off after Bush makes his war, and the media will share in the blame.
-James O. Goldsborough jim.goldsborough@uniontrib.com.
Follow Ups to the above message: