How we were misled by the "Independent" press and Colin Powell

FLASHBACK: 4 Years Ago Editorials Hailed Powell's Iraq Speech

By E&P Staff

Published: February 05, 2007 7:55 PM ET
NEW YORK Today is the fourth anniversary of former Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction and "mobile biological labs" at the United Nations, a crucial moment in greasing the path to war in 2003 -- although much of it was later found to be wildly inaccurate.

Although some doubts were raised about the evidence from some media outlets -- including E& P -- the 80-minute multimedia event quieted concerns that had been rising on many newspaper editorial pages, as the following article, carried by E&P a few days after the speech, shows. It was written by Ari Berman, then an E&P intern.

Ironically, on the fourth anniversary, the U.S. Senate refused to debate and vote on a resolution opposing the latest escalation in Iraq, with even some Republicans who had voice opposition to the war, such as Chuck Hagel and Gordon Smith, voting to deny the move.

Here is the Feb. 10, 2003, E&P article.

*
The day after Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech before the U.N. Security Council Wednesday, daily newspapers in their editorials dramatically shifted their views to support the Bush administration's hard-line stance on Iraq, a new E&P survey has found.

These results come in stark contrast to those of E&P surveys on Jan. 31 and Jan. 20. Those surveys identified strong opposition to President Bush's plans for a quick war in the majority of the country's largest newspapers. The number of newspapers advocating the use of force seemingly has grown faster in the last day or so than it had in the last month.

As recently as a week ago -- 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 editorial pages refrained from hawkish support, calling for the release of more detailed evidence and increased diplomatic maneuvering. The 80-minute presentation by Powell seems to have silenced many of the critics.

While newspapers unanimously praised Powell and criticized Saddam Hussein, they still disagreed over how to act, and when. The latest E&P survey of 40 of the top 50 newspapers (by circulation), found that while three groups -- very pro-war, cautiously pro-war, and war skeptics -- remain, the size of each indicates shifting levels of support in favor of the administration's policy on Iraq.

A once-tiny hawkish faction has grown to include 15 newspapers, three times as many as the five identified in the Jan. 31 E&P survey. The mildly hawkish category also grew, to 14. The dovish contingent slid to 11.

The Dallas Morning News strongly 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."

Other surveyed newspapers shifting from a hesitant to a ready-for-war stance included The Washington Post, The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, The Oregonian in Portland, the Rocky Mountain News in Denver, and The Denver Post.

The Washington Post editorial opened: "After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, 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. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, called it 'powerful and irrefutable.'"

The cautiously pro-war camp expanded to 14 from 11 members, who generally advocated the forceful overthrow of Hussein while contending that maximal international support and preparation still should be prerequisites 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. The Miami Herald praised Powell's presentation for laying the groundwork for war, while saying that any attack should be a last resort.

Others in the cautiously pro-war camp -- such as Newsday in Melville, N.Y., the Detroit Free Press, and The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee -- called for a second U.N. resolution to authorize the use of force. Some previous supporters of U.N. weapons inspectors, such as The Star-Ledger in Newark, N.J., now dismiss their effectiveness.

Even the shrinking number of war skeptics, down to 11 in this survey from 29 in the last one, 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, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch all advised the president to let diplomacy work. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, The Seattle Times, and The Hartford (Conn.) Courant all echoed France's proposal, calling for the return of a beefed-up weapons-inspection team.

The surprisingly vocal dissenters at The Orange County Register in Santa Ana, Calif., claimed Powell's case still did not justify a pre-emptive attack. The Register argued that too many unanswered questions need tackling, including whether terrorism, chemical-and-biological-weapon attacks, and other world problems such as in North Korea might increase due to this use of U.S. force.

Bridging the gap between those that oppose further inspections but still fear the consequences of all-out war, the San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News called for precision air strikes -- such as those used to patrol the already-existing Iraqi no-fly zones -- on suspected weapons facilities.
***

NOTE: Many pundits also were persuaded by Powell.

These included liberals at The Washington Post, Richard Cohen ("The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- 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.") and Mary McGrory ("I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince.").