|
Editorials question Bush’s role
in ‘cooking’ up a war
By Greg Mitchell
New York, Jan. 28 — In the wake of the latest revelations
from weapons inspector David Kay, many of the largest US newspapers
are belatedly pressing the Bush administration for an explanation of
how it could have gotten the question of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD)in Iraq so wrong in the march to war last year. A growing number
are raising the possibility that Bush and his team may have “cooked”
the intelligence to support their case for war.
An E&P survey of the top 20 newspapers by circulation found that
as of Jan. 28, 13 had run editorials on Kay’s resignation as chief
US weapons inspector in Iraq the previous Friday, and his statement
that no WMDs exist in Iraq, and likely did not exist in Iraq during
the US run-up to war.
Nearly all of those papers blamed intelligence failures for the miscalculation
and called for a full probe. But eight of the 13 — most of which
supported the war — also raised the issue of White House deceit
and its possibly blind pursuit of intelligence that fit its plan for
war.
Among them was the Dallas Morning News, in Bush’s home state, which
had supported the war, but now declared: “We feel deceived —
by the CIA, which overestimated the threat, and by the White House,
which probably stretched the bad estimates to build a case for war.”
If Bush had found other strategic or humanitarian reasons for the war,
“he should have argued the case on that basis,” the editorial
said.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also stated that while intelligence
was faulty, “the evidence also seems overwhelming that the Bush
administration pushed existing evidence well beyond its breaking point,
exaggerating threats and claiming specific knowledge of Iraqi WMD where
in reality no such knowledge existed.” The paper also came down
hard on the administration for linking Saddam Hussein directly to al
Qaida — which was in opposition to intelligence reports.
The Los Angeles Times refused to place the blame mainly on the intelligence
agencies, observing that “the administration was not a passive
consumer of intelligence. The CIA’s own Iraq analysts contended
last June that the administration pressured them to create worst-case
scenarios.” While backing a full CIA probe, the LA Times added,
“Any investigation ... will also have to take in to account the
administration’s agenda.” Indeed, Vice President Dick Cheney
continued to make “bogus claims” about WMD in Iraq over the
weekend despite Kay’s findings, the editorial noted.
The Detroit Free Press asked, “Was the administration misled, or
did it twist what it was told to justify taking down Hussein? A full
accounting is due.”
Newsday of Melville, NY, said the latest revelation “raises troubling
questions about the Bush administration’s use of ambiguous or flawed
intelligence findings to buttress its case” for the war. The Oregonian
of Portland stated that, “it’s fair to wonder ... whether
the White House processed the intelligence information professionally.”
The Boston Globe editorial said, in part: “President Bush should
acknowledge two harsh truths: that the intelligence was completely wrong
and that administration hawks tried to politicize intelligence.”
Oddly, while fully condemning the intelligence scandal, the New York
Times and San Francisco Chronicle did not strongly raise the specter
of White House deceit. The Times hinted at this, however, by suggesting
that Cheney’s continuing false arguments revealed the “rigid
thinking” based on “preconceived notions” that “helped
propel us into an invasion.”
The Philadelphia Inquirer simply declared that Kay’s conclusion
“destroys the remaining credibility of this administration’s
argument for an immediate, pre-emptive war.”
Only two the 13 papers that ran editorials expressed little concern
that the Kay findings undercut their support for the war: the New York
Post and New York Daily News. The Post warned readers not to “be
taken in by all the hot air following David Kay’s statements.”
Greg Mitchell is editor of E&P. Research assistance by Sonya
Moore.
Source: Editor & Publisher Online
Dennis Miller’s defense:
Ethics don’t apply to him
Jan. 26 — In response to Fairness and Accuracy InReporting
activists and other critics pointing out the extraordinary conflict
of interest posed by the new Dennis Miller talk show bon CNBC, Miller
and the network have put forth a variety of contradictory excuses.
As FAIR pointed out in a Jan. 23 Action Alert, the Dennis Miller show
employs a consulting producer, Mike Murphy, who at the same time continues
to work as a consultant and fundraiser for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Murphy, who has been nicknamed “the Merchant of Mud” for his
expertise in negative advertising (Toronto Star, 4/5/00), is a leader
of two committees set up to promote Schwarzenegger’s policies and
raise money for his political activities. Murphy’s client is scheduled
to be the featured guest on the show’s debut tonight.
Though from all descriptions, the show is intended to focus heavily
on news and politics, Miller has suggested that rules against journalistic
conflicts of interest don’t apply to him. “I don’t have
the vaguest pretension to journalistic ethics, I’m a comedian,”
he told the Hollywood Reporter (1/26/04), saying that his show would
be “entertainment” rather than “a font of pristine journalistic
ethics.” He suggested at a news conference, in fact, that he’s
actively hostile to the idea of such ethics: “I’m a comedian,”
he told reporters on Jan. 23 (Dallas Morning News, 1/24/04). “Mike’s
my friend and a very funny writer. I’m sorry if it’s violated
anybody’s bullshit sense of journalistic ethics.”
On the other hand, AP reported (1/25/04) that Miller indicated that
“he’s not making a comedy show.” “I don’t want
it to be a screaming shriekfest,” the news service quoted Miller.
“I want it to be a pretty reasoned discourse.” CNBC, of course,
is not Comedy Central, but a cable news channel specializing in business
reporting.
Before it was revealed that Murphy was still a working political consultant,
CNBC dismissed the idea that his past affiliations with politicians
posed a conflict of interest because, as Television Week reported (1/12/04),
“Miller has made clear that his show, however political, will not
be partisan.”
In subsequent comments, however, Miller has made that far from clear.
He told AP (1/25/04) that he would not make jokes at the expense of
George W. Bush. “I like him,” Miller said. “I’m
going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends.”
In the same article, the network put out a new version of its dismissal
of the concept of conflict of interest: “CNBC points out that Murphy
is one of several staff members, and that Miller is looking forward
to having guests with varied views.” The guests that have been
announced so far, for the first week of the show, have all been prominent
Republicans: Schwarzenegger, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
and Sen. John McCain. Mike Murphy managed McCain’s campaign for
the Republican presidential nomination in 2000.
Credited with getting his client (as well as his former client) booked
on the show (Washington Post, 1/19/04), Murphy is influencing decisions
at the network in a way that could conceivably be viewed as an “in-kind”
contribution to the governor’s lobbying and re-election campaigns.
AP also quoted CNBC president Pamela Thomas-Graham as saying of Miller:
“He’s part of a lineup. He’s not the only person in the
lineup”—though he is, in fact, the only person in the lineup
with a show that focuses on the host’s opinions about national
politics. AP said that Thomas-Graham said “she expects [former
tennis star] John McEnroe, whose own talk show will immediately follow
Miller’s starting this spring, to have different views.” It’s
unclear, despite his years in the public eye, what McEnroe’s views
are; “I’m not sure there are a lot of people who should care
about my opinions but I’m interested to interview people in the
political spectrum,” he told the Newcastle Journal (1/16/04).
Given Miller’s thumbing of his nose at journalistic ethics, and
CNBC’s disingenuous defenses of the show, it appears that the Hollywood
Reporter was being accurate when it noted: “CNBC won’t care
what Miller does as long as his 9 pm show brings the network a modicum
of visibility in primetime.”
Source: Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
|
