Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia
Titolo: 5 Years Ago: When the Press Helped Colin Powell Sell the War

5 Years Ago: When the Press Helped Colin Powell Sell the War  
 
By Greg Mitchell 
Published: February 05, 2008 1:55 PM ET 
NEW YORK On February 3, a New York Times story was topped with: “All
Aboard: America’s War Train is Leaving the Station.” Naturally, the
world—and the media commentators—anxiously awaited Secretary of State
Colin Powell’s appearance at the United Nations on February 5, when he was
expected to make the administration’s case for war before a skeptical
body. 
While most pundits were already sold on the invasion, polls showed that
the public was divided—or simply misinformed or confused. So the
performance of the much-respected and moderate Powell could go a long way
to greasing the skids for war. 
Afterward, few pundits felt that they needed to do much fact-checking
before declaring that Powell had, indeed, made his case. The invasion came
six weeks later. Several months after that, it became clear that much of
Powell's presentation was based on wrong or cooked intelligence, and he
and his aides have expressed varying degrees of regret about it since. 
Looking back on that day, it only took hours after Powell’s speech before
the U.N. Security Council for TV commentators and newspaper editorials,
and even many liberal pundits, to declaredtheir support for the Bush
administration’s hard-line stance on Iraq. 
CNN’s Bill Schneider said that “no one” disputed Powell’s findings. Bob
Woodward, asked by Larry King on CNN what happens if we go to war and
don’t find any WMD, answered: “I think the chance of that happening is
about zero. There’s just too much there.” George Will suggested that
Powell’s speech would “change all minds open to evidence.”
The Washingotn Post's liberal columnist, Mary McGrory, wrote that Powell
“persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.” She even likened
the Powell report to the day John Dean “unloaded” on Nixon in the
Watergate hearings. Another liberal at that paper, Richard Cohen, declared
that Powell’s testimony “had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t
accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still
retains them. Only a fool—or possibly a Frenchman—could conclude
otherwise.”
As recently as a week earlier —following weapons inspector Hans Blix’s
report to the United Nations and the president’s State of the Union
address—more than two-thirds of the nation’s leading editorial pages, E&P
had found, called for the release of more detailed evidence and increased
diplomatic maneuvering. The 80-minute presentation by Powell seemed to
have silenced most of the critics.
Consider the day-after editorial endorsements, all from sources not always
on the side of the White House. As media writer Mark Jurkowitz put it in
the Boston Globe, Powell’s speech may not have convinced France of the
need to topple Saddam but “it seemed to work wonders on opinion makers and
editorial shakers in the media universe.”
The San Francisco Chronicle called the speech “impressive in its breadth
and eloquence.” The Denver Post likened Powell to “Marshal Dillon facing
down a gunslinger in Dodge City,” adding that he had presented “not just
one ‘smoking gun’ but a battery of them.” The Tampa Tribune called
Powell’s case “overwhelming,” while The Oregonian in Portland found it
“devastating.” To The Hartford Courant it was “masterful.”
The San Jose Mercury News asserted that Powell made his case “without
resorting to exaggeration, a rhetorical tool he didn’t need.” The San
Antonio Express-News called the speech “irrefutable,” adding, “only those
ready to believe Iraq and assume that the United States would manufacture
false evidence against Saddam would not be persuaded by Powell’s case.”
And what of the two giants of the East? The Washington Post echoed others
who found Powell’s evidence irrefutable. An editorial in the paper judged
that “it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses
weapons of mass destruction. . . . Mr. Powell’s evidence, including
satellite photographs, audio recordings and reports from detainees and
other informants, was overwhelming.”
Here’s the Post’s Jim Hoagland: “Colin Powell did more than present the
world with a convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq’s secret weapons and
terrorism programs yesterday. He also exposed the enduring bad faith of
several key members of the U.N. Security Council when it comes to Iraq and
its ‘web of lies,’ in Powell’s phrase. . . . To continue to say that the
Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin
Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken
in by manufactured evidence. I don’t believe that. Today, neither should
you.”
The New York Times, meanwhile, hailed Powell’s “powerful” and “sober,
factual case.” Like many other papers, the Times, on its news pages—in
separate stories by Steven Weisman, Michael Gordon, and Adam Clymer—also
bent over backward to give Powell the benefit of nearly every doubt.
Apparently in thrall to Powell’s moderate reputation, no one even
mentioned that he was essentially acting as lead prosecutor with every
reason to shape, or even create, facts to fit his brief.
Weisman called Powell’s evidence “a nearly encyclopedic catalog that
reached further than many had expected.” He and Clymer both recalled Adlai
Stevenson’s speech to the U.N. in 1962 exposing Soviet missiles in Cuba.
Gordon closed his piece by asserting that “it will be difficult for
skeptics to argue that Washington’s case against Iraq is based on
groundless suspicions and not intelligence information.”
While newspapers unanimously praised Powell and criticized Saddam Hussein,
they still disagreed over how to act, and when. A once-tiny hawkish
faction had grown to include 15 major newspapers. The Dallas Morning News
reflected the sentiment behind calls for quick force: “The U.S. Secretary
of State did everything but perform cornea transplants on the countries
that still claim to see no reason for forcibly disarming Iraq.”
Those in the more cautious, but still pro-war, camp generally advocate the
forceful overthrow of Hussein while contending that broad international
support still should be a prerequisite for any invasion. “The go-it-alone
ultimatum is one the U.S. and the international community would do well to
avoid—and one that Powell’s much-needed presentation should help head
off,” USA Today wrote. 
Others called for a second U.N. resolution to authorize the use of force.
Even the shrinking number of war skeptics seemed unsure of how to bring
about a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Boston Globe still hoped
for either a coup or Hussein’s exile. The New York Times and San Francisco
Chronicle urged the president to let diplomacy work. Others echoed
France’s proposal—calling for the return of a beefed-up weapons-inspection
team.
Update: ThinkProgress.org has put up a video of Dana Perino, the White
House spokeswoman, being asked today at a press briefing about the fifth
anniversary. She replies: "I didn’t realize that was the anniversary
today," laughs and then adds: "I’m glad you keep tabs on it."
*
To comment or read more, go to blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mitchell (
gmit...@editorandpublisher.com
) is editor. His book on
Iraq and the media, "So Wrong for So Long," will be published next month. 
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
 
http://www.larinascita.org
http://www.italia-cuba.it/associazione/associazione.htm
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it