The Press and the War

Not to get too invested in being an apologist for the media's pre-war malfeasance, but it should be said that there's a reason the press mostly relied on foreigners rather than American Democrats to make the case against the invasion of Iraq -- the leaders of the Democratic Party were all supporting the President's decision. If Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, etc. had all been against the war, I'm sure they would have been treated unfairly (as Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and Howard Dean were) but we would have heard from them.

Meanwhile, my understanding is that not only were key leaders backing the war, but they were also urging anti-war Democratic politicians to not make too much noise and fuss since the main electoral strategy for the 2002 midterms was a doomed effort to take the war "off the table" by having almost everyone in a tough race (either incumbent or challenger) back the war. This whole episode in our history has been surprisingly forgotten (along with related developments like Phil Donohue getting sacked from MSNBC for opposing the war) considering how recent it was, but you can relive it all in Heads in the Sand if you're so inclined.

Comments

Garaffalo!
(sorry for the spelling)

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | April 24, 2008 4:40 PM

I will buy the book, if you pledge:

- that if you become rich (notwithstanding that you're already a trust fund scumbag) off the sales of your book, that you will not "move-on-up" and leave downtown DC.

-I consider Cleavland Park to be too suburbanish and not suitable for indie yuppies.

Posted by nattyb | April 24, 2008 4:51 PM

9/11 was Bush's Reichstag. Once the Towers fell he parlayed their destruction into a campaign of genocide against the dirty Jews--er, Muslims--and appropriation or destruction of their lands and possessions. Judge Jackson hanged the depraved Nazis. Bush needs to swing as well.

Posted by steve duncan | April 24, 2008 4:53 PM

Re Matthew's comment "the leaders of the Democratic Party were all supporting the President's decision.... Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Joe Biden, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, etc"
----------------
Those aren't the LEADERS of the Democratic Party -- they are merely the kitchen help.

The leaders are the superrich men who fund the Party. People like Israeli billionaire Haim Saban.

Haim was the Democratic Party's largest donor in 2000-2002 , by an order of magnitude. Close to $14 Million.

DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe said that Haim "saved the Democratic Party". What's the lives of 4000 soldiers for a favor like that?

Plus you also had billionaire S Daniel Abraham ($2 Million) and several other billionaire donors who are strong supporters of Israel.

Very clever of Dick Cheney to cast seizure of the world's second largest oil deposit as "defending Israel".

Posted by Don Williams | April 24, 2008 5:14 PM

This whole issue has only been forgotten in washington. There's a reason why Hillary is losing, when this should have been a cakewalk for her. There's a reason why Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle aren't leaders in congress anymore. Theres a reason why Joe Lieberman won't ever win office again, and having associated with him is likely to be the touch of death in CT dem politics for a good long time.

You in washington have forgotten all of that. Those of us in real America have not.

Posted by Soullite | April 24, 2008 5:19 PM

Re " the main electoral strategy [of the Democratic elites ] for the 2002 midterms was a doomed effort to take the war "off the table" by having almost everyone in a tough race (either incumbent or challenger) back the war"
-----------------
Actually, the "main electoral strategy" of a faction within the Democratic elite has been to put the dick of the Israel Lobby in its mouth and to suck strongly.

Even when 4000 of their constituents die as a result. Look at how Bill Clinton pulled ahead of far better men in the 1992 primaries.

Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi are among the few who have opposed that sellout.

Posted by Don Williams | April 24, 2008 5:21 PM

This whole issue has only been forgotten in washington. There's a reason why Hillary is losing, when this should have been a cakewalk for her. There's a reason why Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle aren't leaders in congress anymore. Theres a reason why Joe Lieberman won't ever win office again, and having associated with him is likely to be the touch of death in CT dem politics for a good long time.

You in washington have forgotten all of that. Those of us in real America have not.

Posted by Soullite | April 24, 2008 5:23 PM

Not to get too invested in being an apologist for the media's pre-war malfeasance, but it should be said that there's a reason the press mostly relied on foreigners rather than American Democrats to make the case against the invasion of Iraq -- the leaders of the Democratic Party were all supporting the President's decision.

Wash your mouth out with soap. We have to maintain the fantasy that there was, is and always will be a night-and-day difference between the Dems and Repubs on Iraq, to help maintain the additional fantasy that the outcome of the upcoming election is of cosmic importance.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 5:27 PM

"Very clever of Dick Cheney to cast seizure of the world's second largest oil deposit as "defending Israel".

Not to mention that both Cheney and Hillary - and to a lesser degree Obama - are now claiming that seizing the Iranian oil fields is "defending Israel".

I wonder if when Hillary said she'd "obliterate Iran", she included the Khuzestan oil fields.

Bet not.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 24, 2008 11:16 PM

Ashleigh Banfield.

Posted by mike | April 24, 2008 11:22 PM

Mixner - You're forgetting that Obama will be the nominee.

Posted by Rachel Q | April 25, 2008 12:08 AM

Here's my question... why are so many Democrats f'ing pansies? (And yes, I was thinking of another P word there.)

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 25, 2008 12:56 AM

Matt,

Congratulations! After months of hype, you've finally managed to get me interested in buying your book.

Not for nothing, and I understand your point about nearly all major Democrats backing the war in the run up to the 2002 elections as a reason for your lack of skepticism, but some Democrats (and Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan) and many more intelligent non-partisan people saw the war exactly for the debacle it's become.

If winning the next election, by any means necessary, wasn't the driving motivation of every elected politician, Democrat or Republican, perhaps someone might have successfully argued in 2002 that although it might mean losing a few seats in 2002 (how'd the Dems do again? Oh yeah...) it'd be better to run in 2004 on an "I told you so..." platform, rather than a "I was fooled by the President!" platform.

Two diametrically opposed approaches to politics within the Democratic Party? Hmmm.....

Posted by DSG | April 25, 2008 1:11 AM

Rachel--
I don't think Mixner forgot. The one of the main reason I'm supporting Obama is because I think he's made it clear that he understands our responsibilities in Iraq--to the Iraqis, to the troops that have fought and died there for legitimate goals, and to our vital interests which have kept us more-or-less continuously engaged in Iraq since 1991.

And because he's more likely to be able to turn the tables on Iran without, of course, any kind of military strikes which in fact no one is going to authorize in the lifetime of anyone posting here.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 25, 2008 4:15 AM

So, if the Dem party leaders in Congress were for it, then the MSM is excused if it ignores pretty much all other non-foreign voices against the war? As I remember, Bob Graham (the Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman) and Ted Kennedy (I've heard of that guy somewhere, give me a second) were against the war on the Dem side, and even realist GOP types like Brent Scowcroft sounded notes of alarm about the run-up to war. MY is sounding the frequently-heard MSM party line on the war: those pansy Dems made us cheerlead for the war because they didn't oppose it strongly enough! IF they had, well, of course, we would have covered the hell out of it and asked all those skeptical questions that we didn't start asking until 2005-6. The unstated assumption (also frequently heard these days) is that the MSM doesn't give a shit if what the administration is saying about a potential war is true unless someone contradicts them about it strongly enough. It's a neat way for media types who regret their former support for the war (like Matt) to give themselves and their colleagues a pass. Nice try, dude!

Posted by scottreads | April 25, 2008 9:31 AM

DSG:
If you remember, Al Gore and Jim Webb(he even write an op-ed in the WaPo saying such) were both against the Iraq fiasco from the start. Hell, Molly Ivins had been trying to warn everyone what a buffoon the Boy King was. Very few people of the Dem hierarchy wanted to listen at the time. And look where it got Daschle. Drummed right out of the Senate anyway.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 25, 2008 9:38 AM

If you remember, Al Gore and Jim Webb(he even write an op-ed in the WaPo saying such) were both against the Iraq fiasco from the start.

You might want to re-read Gore's 2002 opinion. Some of it holds up well but his message really boils down to Saddam is building a massive cabinet of horrors and might kill us all but we shouldn't be hasty about dealing with it and need to get our ducks in a row internationally first. I remember that being the dovish end of the spectrum of seriousness and that was exactly the problem.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 25, 2008 10:21 AM