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 (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of Editor & Publisher and his new book is currently excerpted at Salon.

He blogs at: http://gregmitchellwriter.blogspot.com/

Popularity: 1% [?]

The same yes men and women are all present and accounted for: ready to kiss ass and throw soft very soft balls to the Great White Father.
Looking at the press you wonder what drugs they are taking and you realize these knuckle draggers might be humanoid.
The University of Mo. or Harvard produced these extras from Night of The Living Dead.Most of them when they do get to a war zone stay in the Green Zone and pay the locals to die for them.
If some one seems alive they are from the outside not yet fully Beltwayed into submission. Listen to their questions and you realize the American Press are fully qualified to ask their way to the rest room and the bar, anything more is too deep for them. “Why are at war?” is too hard a question for a NYT’s person to ask.

The phrase involving zombies used here I assertis not accurate. Zombies are bodies without a mind—this is the caricature of Democrats, of those who believe in the physical world but oppose the use of scientific concepts by which to deal with it. The phrase here instead perhaps should inolve ghosts—minds from another space-time without a body.
That is what Republicans are–those who do not accept the reality of the physical but claim their leader is an inerrab;le mystiically-inspired thinker. Having lived under many such, we of course know better; the press, who follow presidents around as if they were caesars, do not know anything–deliberately. The same disconcepted press who have watched the destruction of rights and regulations in the Constitution here watched an imperial presidential dirty-trick, slander and election-farud artist orchestrate over 930 false, misleading or worse statements into an excuse to rush the United States’ citizens into something.
That something was a needless, useless reinvasion of Iraq, whose dictator had had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 pseudo-religious mass murderers, no WMDs and no power to attack anyone. Equally, Iraq’s cobbled-together tribalist non country has no capability of becoming anything except another low-grade oil-producing Near Eastern tyranny viciously opposed to realism, individuals’ rights, females’ rights, responsible self-conduct, education in how to think and anything but Muslim postmodernist reality bashing and fundamentalist rant. The reason we can make no headway in the Near East should be obvious–we are in theory no better than they are philosophically, not under a pseudo-theocratic such as George W. Bush. Every idea he has ever espoused has been mislabeled, unrealistic, wrong or even more deadly. But the one question that should have been asked by the press after the reinvasion is not whether any political figure voted for the exectuive action as a possibility or not; the question should be “Did Mr. Bush and his administration do what he said he would do, do what they ought to have done and do what required to be done–let the inspectors complerte their job, check for real evidence, tell the truth to potential allies, weigh the suicidal cost of such an action,
find WMDs and consider the consequences of being wrong, being precipitate or being traitors?” They did not. Many of us did. So long as we have an extremist statist press acting as the running dogs of imperialirt Republican pretensions, so long as we have no regulations on supposedlly non-fictional utterance; just so long the former citizens of this betrayed republic will have no legal defense against
what happened here–no educatinal-system–no elections–and no press worthy the name of “free”
men.