New at Reason
Michael C. Moynihan asks who deserves the blame for Iraq: Incredibly arrogant policymakers or incredibly credulous reporters?
Comments to "New at Reason":
mw | July 17, 2007, 1:22pm | #
"who deserves the blame for Iraq: Incredibly arrogant policymakers or incredibly credulous reporters"How about - both.
Steven Thomas | July 17, 2007, 1:23pm | #
Saddam Hussien. Our terror defense system is so feeble that had he been half-way competent, he could have brought the US to its knees with a series of "first strikes".I'm not kidding.
Michael Pack | July 17, 2007, 1:28pm | #
This looks the same as 'the war on drugs','the war on poverty','the war on pornograph' or many other policies that were at first popular.Minion of URKOBOLD | July 17, 2007, 1:29pm | #
BUT STEVEN THOMAS IS CERTAINLY A JOKEP Brooks | July 17, 2007, 1:29pm | #
"Senator Bernie Sanders thinks that the news media "are as responsible as President Bush for the disaster that now befalls us...."As much as I would have liked to hear a chant of "Bull Shit! Bull Shit! Bull Shit!" spontaneously erupt during each and every White House press briefing in the run-up to the invasion and overthrow of Iraq, responsibility for the war and consequent disasters lies with the administration which "planned" and carried it out.
Sorry, no sale. During the lead up to the war the American press was nothing but the president's lapdog. However much "blame" they deserve, they failed utterly in their self-defined job discription.
Ken Shultz | July 17, 2007, 1:36pm | #
I'd like to blame fear mongers everywhere but really the blame belongs with us, the cowardly general public.Maybe we would have done better with better leadership and maybe we would have done better with better information; regardless, we were way too quick to follow the fear mongers wherever they wanted to go, and the blame for that belongs to us alone.
Alan Vanneman | July 17, 2007, 1:40pm | #
It was quite natural for the press to defer to the President at a time of national crisis. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate. If the Democrats had aggressively confronted Bush's lies, the press would have reported what they said. I'm sure plenty of reporters wish that they could be like Jon Stewart, and be paid $2 million a year to make snarky one-liners that 90% of the population won't understand, but that won't happen.That said, neither the Post nor the Times has much to be proud of. Judith Miller's "reporting" was bad journalism. The Post has never really confronted its abysmal handling of the Jessica Lynch "story." Post reporters were deliberately lied to by military press people. Who were they? The Post won't say.
Brandybuck | July 17, 2007, 1:40pm | #
Saddam is partially to blame. He bluffed on WMDs and we called him on it. He had years to demonstrate that he got rid of his WMDs, but kept up a charade of a coverup. Was he trying to fool us, or just his people?Of course, it's not ALL his fault. Chest thumping braggadocio is what dictators do.
VM | July 17, 2007, 1:42pm | #
Those who made the decision (congress authorizing, president for lying about reason).the buck stops there.
Ken Shultz | July 17, 2007, 1:45pm | #
"It was quite natural for the press to defer to the President at a time of national crisis. The Democrats had a majority in the Senate. If the Democrats had aggressively confronted Bush's lies, the press would have reported what they said."I don't have anything nice to say about how the Democrats handled things, but in a nation of frightened sheep, expecting elected politicians to challenge the fear mongers just isn't reasonable.
Episiarch | July 17, 2007, 1:46pm | #
The media is a bunch of sensationalist morons, and anyone who listens to anything they say without a ton of skepticism is an idiot.People love to find somebody to blame for any fucking thing that happens. So now we have the recriminations flying. Big deal; it always happens this way. The reality is that "blame" is often far too nebulous and widespread to assign, so you either get a scapegoat or argue at length that your particular boogeyman is "to blame".
If you want to be technical, it is the President's fault, and also Congress', because only they have the power to act and to authorize. But they thought they were acting on the wishes of the people, which they are supposedly supposed to do.
Collective action is a bitch. Makes blame much harder to pin (for those who have a fetish for pinning blame).
DOKTOR MINION | July 17, 2007, 1:46pm | #
Pay no attention to the URKOBOLD. He is having a case of the MalkovichesTrickyVic | July 17, 2007, 1:47pm | #
Blame, if any, should be placed on the people who were in control of the war efforts. Much of the outcome is an effect of their decisions.The media has nothing to do with missions selected or how they were executed. Problems on the ground are not created by the media, only reported.
TrickyVic | July 17, 2007, 1:48pm | #
"""THE URKOBOLD BLAMES UMA THURMAN."""I volunteer to spank Uma for URKOBOLD.
Cesar | July 17, 2007, 1:49pm | #
The way the entire country was handling itself in late 2002/early 2003 during the run-up to the war seriously made me consider leaving the country.The chest-thumping, the jingoism, the stupid French-bashing, the trivialization of war, the faux chickenhawk masculinity of the
Republicans, the cowardice of the Democrats (supposedly the "opposition" party), the labeling of anyone who dare question King George II as "giving comfort to the enemy.
Every, single, living moment of it made me sick.
Urkobold™ | July 17, 2007, 1:50pm | #
VIKING MINION,THE URKOBOLD WOULD CHASTISE YOU, BUT HE IS USING NEW TECHNOLOGY TO REPLACE YOUR POSTINGS WITH PICTURES OF THE LOBSTER GIRL.
VM | July 17, 2007, 1:51pm | #
Cesar sums it up perfectly.TrickyVic - you may spank Swoosie Kurtz instead.
sorry for the double | July 17, 2007, 1:51pm | #
ja ja. ich weiss
Urkobold™ | July 17, 2007, 2:07pm | #
VM,THE URKOBOLD IS NOT AMUSED BY YOUR HERESY. GO TO YOUR ROOM AND WATCH KRIEG DER STERNE ONE THOUSAND TIMES.
Cesar | July 17, 2007, 2:14pm | #
Yeah, many threaten. None ever do.If that crap had continued for a few more years I would have made good on it.
It was as if the entire country at that time had said "Hey, lets talk all the unflattering stereotypes the rest of the world holds about us, and make them all true!"
VM | July 17, 2007, 2:15pm | #
lobster gram
Cesar still wins the thread for summing up things very well!
shecky | July 17, 2007, 2:20pm | #
I'll back up Cesar. The country lost it's head for what seemed like a pretty long time following 9/11, and GWB enjoyed a rather long period of restraint on the part of the media and citizens. At a time when critical thinking was most needed, America collectively surrendered to what was thought to be even before 9/11, a fantastically incompetent president.Certainly GWB must be held responsible for his fuck ups, and just as much for abusing the faith of Americans. But Americans are also responsible, as the desire simply to kick someone's ass for 9/11 degraded to a complicity to kick anyone's ass regarless of complicity with the act.
It was our fault - these are the leaders we chose to make the decisions.
Pro Libertate | July 17, 2007, 2:36pm | #
I'm with Aresen--it was the Romans' fault. B-b-b-bastards!Rattlesnake Jake | July 17, 2007, 2:42pm | #
"It was our fault - these are the leaders we chose to make the decisions."Including politicians like Hillary who gave Bush the OK.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 17, 2007, 2:46pm | #
I don't recall the MSM ever supporting this war with the exception of Fox News.Rattlesnake Jake | July 17, 2007, 2:54pm | #
"The chest-thumping, the jingoism, the stupid French-bashing, the trivialization of war, the faux chickenhawk masculinity of theRepublicans, the cowardice of the Democrats (supposedly the "opposition" party), the labeling of anyone who dare question King George II as "giving comfort to the enemy."
I also felt that way during the first Gulf war. I felt all alone in my opposition to the war. Even most Hollywood stars supported it.
Sal Paradise | July 17, 2007, 2:59pm | #
"Certainly GWB must be held responsible for his fuck ups..."I like how Bill Maher put it :
"You don't get to become the worst president ever without a little help from the other side. "
TrickyVic | July 17, 2007, 3:24pm | #
"""It was our fault - these are the leaders we chose to make the decisions.""""True people have some responsible for who they elect, but they have no control beyond that. The fact that Bush was reelected shows the majority of the voting public approved of his policies. But to outright blame the citizens is to pass the buck. One could argue that Americans supported a winning strategy and didn't receive what that wanted. That would be like going to a resturant, getting a really bad meal and then the chef blames you because you ordered it.
THE URKOBOLD CUTS OUT THE MIDDLE MAN AND BLAMES EACH AND EVERY U.S. SOLDIER. THEY SHOULD'VE MUTINIED AND INVADED A NATION MORE AMENABLE TO OUR INFLUENCE. LIKE CHINA.
Minion of URKOBOLD | July 17, 2007, 3:48pm | #
There's someone who took Michael Porter's Disintermediation seriously!Mr. Nice Guy | July 17, 2007, 3:57pm | #
"The Democrats had a majority in the Senate. If the Democrats had aggressively confronted Bush's lies, the press would have reported what they said."Maybe in bizarro land or some Fox news alternate reality. The GOP had the House and there their party supported the war pretty much lockstep (only SIX dissenters, now that's groupthink for ya). A majority of Dems in the House opposed the war. With the exception of Lincoln Chafee every GOPer in the Senate voted for the war, while 21 of the 50 Dems voted against it. The Dems are to blame for a majority of their party in the Senate voting for this mess, but other than that the blame is squarely on the GOP. But notice how incompetent the Dem party is right now as they are set to nominate Hillary who voted for the war, thus giving the GOP a chance to duck their screw-up by claiming it was a bi-partisan war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#Voted_in_favor
Mr. Nice Guy | July 17, 2007, 4:00pm | #
I agree with Jake, I don't remember the press supporting the war. They struggled with Bush's assertions about WMD and terrorist connections, but you have to remember the constant pounding these people take from right wing organizations for ever questioning a Republican President. Heck, years after we found out the WMD and connections were bogus Hannity et al were (and are) STILL saying the "MSN" are attacking Bush on the war sheerly out of liberal bias!Urkobold, You Fool! The Lobster Girl And Her Ilk Are Responsible! While We, The American People, Should Have Been Paying Attention To Weapons Inspector Reports And Cost-Benefit Analyses, We Were Distracted By Pictures Of Scantily-Clad Magnamammous Women.
TrickyVic | July 17, 2007, 4:18pm | #
""""but you have to remember the constant pounding these people take from right wing organizations for ever questioning a Republican President."""Despite what peoples personal beliefs of Joe Wilson, they guy basically determined that the claim of a forged document was false. Look how he was treated.
Hannity et al, couldn't and still can't accept that the forged document was wrong, because Joe Wilson said so. But I can see the Bush admin arguement, "hey, just because it was forged doesn't mean it lacked integrity!"
pinko | July 17, 2007, 5:48pm | #
I tend to blame the U.S. populace. We went through a retarded phase that lasted through November of 2004 at the least. And no, there was absolutely no reason for this to last as long as it did except for the fact that we all seem to think its okay to act like children (look daddy has a flightsuit on! yummy freedom fries!).I'll grant about three months of post-9/11 ducktape madness, but no more. I'm tired of hearing that we should have gotten a longer dispensation to behave irrationally.
joe | July 17, 2007, 5:53pm | #
Despite what peoples personal beliefs of Joe Wilson, they guy basically determined that the claim of a forged document was false. Look how he was treated.I can recall the former Chief American Weapons Inspector being called a child molester after he appeared on teevee and called bullshit on the WMD fraud. Seriously, a child molester.
Tim | July 17, 2007, 6:04pm | #
A big problem with today's media is their inability to call bullshit on the lies put forth through Republican talking points. After years of right-wingers shouting at 'liberal media bias,' the press gives equal creedence to right-wing propaganda regardless of the merits of their statements. That's where Jon Stewart fills the void. Couple this shift with the discipline with which Republicans and their pundits repeat the mantra of the day, and you have the American public believing that Iraq was responsible for 911 and that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent.Cesar | July 17, 2007, 7:38pm | #
I can recall the former Chief American Weapons Inspector being called a child molester after he appeared on teevee and called bullshit on the WMD fraud. Seriously, a child molester.Well, that one is actually sort of true. He was caught chatting up sexually what he thought was a 14 year old girl but ended up being an FBI agent.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 17, 2007, 8:27pm | #
"Couple this shift with the discipline with which Republicans and their pundits repeat the mantra of the day"Tim, I agree that conservatives repeat talking points, almost always friendly to the GOP not only in ideology but in strategy (focusing on what the GOP wants to focus on at the time), in what must be a concerted fashion. I will say though that the media is partly to blame for this themselves. They were such leftist saps, especially on social issues (affirmative action, busing, abortion, immigration) that many joe-sixpacks were sick of them and primed for the "liberal MSN" narrative the movement conservatives started selling. I'm not sure if cleaning their own house would have helped or only slowed it, but it should have been done all the same.
I read a recent study that examined the content of two "conservative" editorial pages (Washington Times and WSJ) and two "liberal" ones (I think WP and NYT) during a period in both the Clinton and Bush reigns. The conservative papers had like one negative editorial about Bush while the "liberal" papers had a slew of negative ones on Clinton. The "liberal" biases of some outlets is hardly the concerted effort of their right wing counter parts.
Conservatives are on much more sure grounds if by media they mean "Hollywood." TV and movies are almost invariably very, very to the left.
Mr. Nice Guy | July 17, 2007, 8:33pm | #
It usually takes about 5 seconds on the blogosphere for someone to challenge you for a cite, sohttp://www.ksg.harvard.edu/shorenstein//research_publications/papers/research_papers/R25.pdf
crimethink | July 17, 2007, 10:05pm | #
Mr Nice Guy,One possible explanation for that is that liberals had many policy differences with Clinton (welfare reform, for example) while conservatives haven't had such differences with Bush yet. (Well, maybe immigration, but that probably hadn't reared its head during the study you mention)
douglas gray | July 17, 2007, 11:18pm | #
The way the Iraq War played out in the media had much to do with the emotions surrounding the 9/11 Attacks. 40% of Americans still think Saddam was involved, although there is no evidence. Even among the other 60%, there is the idea that we are fighting one homogeneous enemy, and that by invading Iraq, we were striking back at the same camp which was responsible for 9/11. This instinctive, emotional view of the situation largely precluded rational debate, either in Congress or the Media. If you supported the War on Terror, you had to support the Prez on Iraq.After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had the good sense to understand that Germany was a far more dangerous foe than Japan, and he planned accordingly.
Today, we have an unintelligent Texas cowboy trying to direct a war which requires a careful mixture of strategic planning, political saavy, and coordinated intelligence.
Instead, his conduct has weakened our position and made us more vulnerable.
Rick H. | July 17, 2007, 11:30pm | #
...while conservatives haven't had such differences with Bush yet.If true, that's exhibit A against 'em. This petulant, spoiled-rich, dull-witted cunt, who's rigged us all with decades' worth of debt and massive gov't expansion, has become the modern standard of "conservatism!" Wow.
GILMORE | July 17, 2007, 11:53pm | #
in essense, citizen critics blame journalists for not "telling us the right thing to think!""Right Thinking" Journalism is propaganda. The complaint has little to do with war and a lot to do with honest journalism, which should not pass judgement but let consumers do the thinking about the nature of the facts and what they should lead us to conclude.
The "we report. you decide" slogan is in fact a noble and accurate one... if only they (Fox) made even the slightest pretence of upholding that ideal. I dont blame journalists, activist or otherwise... or do I blame academics, or pundits, or NGO-public policy experts. I blame everyone else for not thinking hard enough about the costs and risks of war.
It reminds me of my friends in college who watched MTV and Sportscenter all day, and would go, 'jesus, this is all such bullshit'. Every now and then I'd look up from my book and go, "then turn it off asshole".
S.A. Miller | July 18, 2007, 3:59am | #
I can recall the former Chief American Weapons Inspector being called a child molester after he appeared on teevee and called bullshit on the WMD fraud. Seriously, a child molester.Old arrest could silence Iraq arms expert
The arrest occurred in June 2001 in the Albany suburb of Colonie, after Ritter allegedly arranged to meet with someone he thought was a 16-year-old girl he'd met in an Internet chat room. The person was actually an undercover police officer.The guy was arrested trying to pick up underage girls in a fucking Burger King parking lot. Some how he got the charges dropped, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Ritter was arrested for attempted child endangerment, a class B misdemeanor
Oh yeah, and then there was the $400,000 Ritter got from an Iraqi, who himself got it from the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program, to make a pro-Sadaam documentary.
Rob Webster | July 18, 2007, 10:43am | #
If reviewers had done THEIR job when 'Roger & Me' was released there would be no Michael Moore.Psst, hey, S.A. Miller: Ritter was right. There were no WMDs. You might have missed that story.
joe | July 19, 2007, 12:00pm | #
The So-Called Liberal Media is largely staffed by people who lean to the left, and believe that they have a responsibility to be as fair, objective, and truthful as possible, without regard to party or personality.The conservative media is largely staffed by people who lean to the right, and believe that they have a responsibility to argue vociferously in favor of the Republican Party, George W. Bush, and conservative ideology in general.