A lot of media outlets are now scrutinizing some of the lies told by
the Bush administration before the invasion of Iraq. Yet the same
news organizations are bypassing their own key roles in the marketing
of those lies. A case in point is the New York Times.
On Oct. 29, hours after the indictment of Lewis Libby, the lead
editorial of the Times ended by declaring that “the big point
Americans need to keep in mind is this: There were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.” On Oct. 30, the Times columnist Frank Rich
referred to “Colin Powell’s notorious presentation of WMD ‘evidence’
to the UN on the eve of war.”
And so it goes in the opinion section of the New York Times. There’s
now eagerness to blast the Bush administration for some aspects of
false prewar propaganda -- while the newspaper continues to dodge its
own crucial role in promoting that propaganda.
Many people have become aware that news articles by Judith Miller and
other Times reporters -- often splashed on the front page -- were
conduits for the administration’s deceptive claims about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. The New York Times has portrayed itself as
a victim of misinformation, as though a conveyor of falsehoods has
scant responsibility.
But bogus news reporting was not the only way that the Times helped
to push the United States into invading Iraq. Despite its reputation
as a strong opponent of going to war, the paper’s editorial voice
capitulated when it was needed most.
Let’s reach down into the Orwellian memory hole and retrieve what the
New York Times had to say -- in an editorial headlined “The Case
Against Iraq” -- the day after what Frank Rich now calls Colin
Powell’s “notorious presentation.”
The Times declared that Powell “presented the United Nations and a
global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to
date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council
resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering
whatever unconventional weapons he may have.”
The Feb. 6, 2003, editorial by the Times also proclaimed: “President
Bush’s decision to dispatch Mr. Powell to present the
administration’s case before the Security Council showed a wise
concern for international opinion. Since Mr. Bush’s own address to
the UN last September, he has kept faith with his commitment to work
through the Security Council.”
And the Times editorial gushed: “Mr. Powell’s presentation was all
the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations
of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober,
factual case against Mr. Hussein’s regime.”
For a “notorious presentation,” Powell’s performance at the UN got a
rave review from a newspaper supposedly objecting to the momentum for
war.
Now, while the New York Times is busily clucking at deceptive prewar
maneuvers by Dick Cheney’s office, the Times refuses to own up to how
effectively the Cheney operation gained its support, from page-one
stories about WMDs to editorials assisting Washington’s war makers.
Meanwhile, a distinct rhythm of drumming for a war dance is audible
in the present. Consider a statement that appeared a couple of inches
under the close of the New York Times editorial declaring on Oct. 29
that “there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” In an
editorial just below, the Times flatly stated conjecture as fact:
“Iran has a nuclear weapons program.”
_____________________________________
Norman Solomon is the author of the new book “War Made Easy: How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to:
www.WarMadeEasy.com