The Free Press: Speaking Truth to Power Fri Nov 21 2008
Columns
Norman Solomon

Fending off the Threat of Peace
August 8, 2002

To fend off the threat of peace, determination is necessary. Elected officials and high-level appointees must work effectively with reporters and pundits.

This is no time for the U.S. government to risk taking "yes" for an answer from Iraq. Guarding against the danger of peace, the Bush administration has moved the goal posts, quickly pounding them into the ground.

In early August, a State Department undersecretary swung a heavy mallet. "Let there be no mistake," said John Bolton. "While we also insist on the reintroduction of the weapons inspectors, our policy at the same time insists on regime change in Baghdad -- and that policy will not be altered, whether inspectors go in or not."

A sinister cloud briefly fell over the sunny skies for war. The U.S. Congress got a public invitation. A letter from a top Iraqi official "said congressional visitors and weapons experts of their choice could visit any site in Iraq alleged to be used for development of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons," USA Today reported.

Summing up the diplomatic overture, the front page of the New York Times informed readers that the letter "was apparently trying to pit legislators against the Bush administration" (a pithy phrase helping to quash a dastardly peace initiative). Later on, the article noted that "the letter said members of Congress could bring all the arms experts they wanted and should plan to stay three weeks."

There may have been a moment of panic in Washington. On the face of it, the Aug. 5 invitation was unequivocally stating thatmembers of the Senate and House -- plus some of the best and most experienced weapons inspectors in the world -- could go to Iraq and engage in a thorough inspection process. That's similar to what the White House has been demanding of Iraq for many years.

The news had ominous potential. It could derail the war train gaining so much momentum this summer. But U.S. media coverage matched the bipartisan refusal by leaders in Congress to do anything but scorn the offer.

Even before describing the invitation from Iraq's government, the first words of the USA Today news story on Aug. 6 called it "the latest Iraqi bid to complicate U.S. invasion plans." That's some reporting! When our most powerful politicians are hell-bent on starting a war, complete with human misery and death of unfathomable proportions, then the last thing they want is complications before the bloodshed gets underway.

Why should anyone in Washington try to defuse this crisis when we have such a clear opportunity to light such an enormous fuse in the Middle East?

Oh sure, here at home, there are always some people eager to unleash the dogs of peace. Not content to pray, they actually believe: Blessed be the peacemakers. They don't defer to the machinery of war that grinds human beings as if they were mere sausage. They don't make peace with how determined the Executive Branch must be -- and how sheepish and even cowardly the members of Congress must be -- so that the bombs can fall in all their glory.

One of the people who's trying to impede the war drive is Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. in Iraq. "To date," Ritter says, "the Bush administration has been unable -- or unwilling -- to back up its rhetoric concerning the Iraqi threat with any substantive facts."

In Britain, the press is failing to welcome the next war. On Aug. 4 in the Observer, foreign affairs editor Peter Beaumont wrote: "The question now appears to be not whether there will be a war, but when. The answer is that in war, as other matters, timing is all. For President George W. Bush that timing will be dictated by the demands of a domestic political agenda."

A news story in the July 30 edition of the Financial Times began this way: "Rolf Ekeus, head of United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq from 1991-97, has accused the U.S. and other Security Council members of manipulating the U.N. inspections teams for their own political ends. The revelation by one of the most respected Swedish diplomats is certain to strengthen Iraq's argument against allowing U.N. inspectors back into the country."

Such reporting, if widely pursued on this side of the Atlantic, could seriously undermine the war planners. But don't worry. The threat of peace is up against good ol' professional news judgment here in the USA.

_______________________________________________

Norman Solomon's latest book is "The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media." His syndicated column focuses on media and politics.


Email this article to a friend




1240 Bryden Road Columbus, Ohio 43209 Ph/Fx 614.253.2571 Email truth@freepress.org
  

Don't forget to check out articles from 2007 and 2008

Norman Solomon

"Media Year 2002, R.I.P."
  December 27, 2002

"Sean Penn in Baghdad -- Image gives way to substance"
  December 23, 2002

"Decoding Some Top Buzz Words of 2002 "
  December 11, 2002

"Media Spin can Separate War from Death"
  December 6, 2002

"If Commercial Radio Actually Trafficked in News"
  November 29, 2002

"Unilateral Power -- By Any Other Name "
  November 21, 2002

"Time Capsule: Looking Backward at 2002"
  November 14, 2002

"Branding New and Improved Wars"
  October 29, 2002

"Polls: when measuring is manipulating"
  October 18, 2002

"Media Guide: How to view the United Nations"
  October 4, 2002

"Drown out drums of war with the sound of dialogue"
  October 3, 2002

"Determined Journalism Can Challenge Injustice "
  September 24, 2002

"Baghdad, Autumn 2002: City of Doom"
  September 20, 2002

"Media Sizzle for an Army of Fun"
  September 14, 2002

"The Powell Trap: Easing Us Into War"
  September 5, 2002

"What If We Didn't Need Labor Day?"
  August 30, 2002

"'Wag the Puppy' -- New Twist in Media War"
  August 22, 2002

"True Confessions of a Media CEO"
  August 15, 2002

"Fending off the Threat of Peace"
  August 8, 2002

"The Old Spin on the 'New Economy'"
  August 6, 2002

"War and Forgetfulness -- A Bloody Media Game"
  August 1, 2002

"Will this be an 'Official Scandal' -- or Something Else?"
  July 25, 2002

"Renouncing Sins Against the Corporate Faith"
  July 11, 2002

"'Monomedia' and the First Amendment"
  June 28, 2002

"A Modest Proposal for Media Reform"
  June 25, 2002

"A Creeping Indifference and a Silent Hollowing Out"
  June 17, 2002

"Three Decades Later, Watergate Is A Cautionary Tale"
  June 13, 2002

"Nuclear Weapons and Media Fog"
  June 6, 2002

"'War on Terrorism' Winking at Nuclear Terror"
  May 30, 2002

"Media Strategy Memo to George, Dick and John "
  May 23, 2002

"The Case of the 9-11 Photo"
  May 16, 2002

"No Media Interest in a Basic Matter of Democracy"
  May 9, 2002

"Still Not Good Enough -- From Barbie to Botox "
  May 2, 2002

"Media and the Hazards of Political Faith "
  April 25, 2002

"Alice's New Adventures in Medialand"
  April 18, 2002

"NPR and the Fallow Triumph of Public Radio"
  April 15, 2002

"Palestinians Are Blurry in the Editorial Frame "
  April 5, 2002

"Profiles in Media Courage "
  March 28, 2002

"'The Liberal Media' -- A Poltergeist That Will Not Die "
  March 21, 2002

"Television Becoming Spoof-Proof "
  March 14, 2002

"Big Silver Lining for the Pentagon "
  February 28, 2002

"New Heights for a Remarkable Pundit "
  February 22, 2002

"When Nothing But a Full-Page Ad Will Do"
  February 15, 2002

"GWB and the Incredible Shrinking FDR "
  February 4, 2002

"Ashcroft's Media Scam: A Confederacy of Amnesia"
  January 24, 2002

"A Communique From the Ghost of Mark Twain "
  January 17, 2002

"A Radio Network Coming Back to Life "
  January 14, 2002

"The Discreet Charm of the Straight Spin "
  January 3, 2002




Read Articles by Year:
2007 2006 2005 2004
2003 2002 2001 2000




All content © 1970-2008
The Columbus Free Press
Disclaimer