Today is America's Day of Shame -- 4th Anniversary of Powell at UN

[lwcon]

From dayofshame.org, commemorating Colin Powell's fateful UN presentation, four years ago today.



Not to let anyone off the hook, but it's not exactly surprising that the Bush administration would head us straight into the Big Muddy.

At what point did Bush and Cheney not reek of arrogance, dishonesty, and venality? Ditto for their neocon "brain trust" and a rubber-stamp Congress drunk on pork and power.

Sarah Vowell admits she was caught off-guard:

I see my initial worries about the current administration as the greatest betrayal in my whole life by my old pal pessimism. I attended the president's inauguration in 2001. When he took the presidential oath, I cried. What was I so afraid of? I was weeping because I was terrified that the new president would wreck the economy and muck up my drinking water. Isn't that adorable? I lacked the pessimistic imagination to dread that tens of thousands of human beings would be spied on or maimed or tortured or killed or stranded or drowned, thanks to his incompetence.

Me? I expected the worst from the Bushies, and that's just what I got. "You may screw up my country," I thought, "but nothing you do will surprise me."

Surprise came from another front, and my pessimism-readiness proved just as inadequate as Vowell's. The reviews came in for Colin Powell's off-Broadway production.

If Powell's selling of the war was Shakespearean, the media's response belonged in a Greek tragedy — a unison chorus shouting "compelling, compelling":

"a massive array of evidence," "a detailed and persuasive case," "a powerful case," "a sober, factual case," "an overwhelming case," "a compelling case," "the strong, credible, and persuasive case," "a persuasive, detailed accumulation of information," "the core of his argument was unassailable," "a smoking fusillade... a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable," "an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence," "only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction," "the skeptics asked for proof; they now have it," "a much more detailed and convincing argument than any that has previously been told," "an ironclad case... incontrovertible evidence," "succinct and damning evidence... the case is closed," "Colin Powell delivered the goods on Saddam Hussein," "masterful," "If there was any doubt that Hussein... needs to be... stripped of his chemical and biological capabilities, Powell put it to rest."

This just couldn't be. I'd seen the show! Max Bialystock wouldn't have touched this turkey.

Though this site commemorates February 5, 2003, perhaps the true day of shame is the 6th, when the press and pundit class pronounced Powell's speech an unimpeachable call to arms.

I should have seen it coming. The signs all pointed to it.

It was there when a doddering and valueless Ronald Reagan was exalted as "presidential" and "The Great Communicator." It was there when non-stop equivalation turned a mismatch between a well-rounded statesman and a strutting twit into a horserace.

But the entire news establishment calling bullshit parfait? And not just any bullshit, bullshit that was ready, willing, and — thanks to them — able to kill hundreds of thousands of people and catalyze chaos in the most volatile part of the world!?

If the press would do that, what might they do if the government started spying on us, torturing people, and suspending the right of habeas corpus? Let's hope we don't have to find out.

Perhaps like many progressives, you saw the UN presentation for the sad, whorific spectacle it was. Or maybe like many others — including those who entrusted war powers to Bush — you believed either that Bush was bluffing his way to more leverage with Hussein or he had much stronger evidence that he couldn't reveal for security reasons.

If you were blogging in February and March 2003 (I wasn't), or if you still have your old e-mail (I do), look back at what you wrote then. George Santayana would have wanted you to. And please share your stories on our log page.

Here's what I found in my trip down memory lane, five questions I kept sending a Republican friend while debating the merits of the pending war:

1. In your opinion, what good evidence did Bush or Powell provide that Saddam has WMD?
2. How can one justify a pre-emptive war absent strong evidence of either a clear and present threat or a violation of UN sanctions?
3. If evidence doesn't matter, why did we urge the UN to resume the inspection regimes?
4. What justified our trumping the UN's inspection efforts (which, again, were resumed at our urging), at a substantial cost to us in international good will?
5. Why are we optimistic that regime change will be effective, given the tragic history of blowback and no U.S. good deed going unpunished in the Middle East?

The debate raged on, but he never did answer any of those questions.

I ain't no Bob Woodward. I don't have Judith Miller's Rolodex, nor the bully pulpit that is the New York Times.

They clearly know more about American politics than I ever will. So, why didn't they bother to wonder about such things? And why, to this day, does the MSM still work to tilt power toward this failed administration? Their robotic insistence on "centrism" and "bipartisanship" is, at heart, a call to unmake last November's redistribution of Congressional power:

Back in 2002, when the U.S. was debating whether to invade Iraq, those who opposed the invasion were, for that reason alone, dismissed as unserious morons and demonized as anti-American subversive hippies. Despite the fact that subsequent events have largely proven them to have been right, and that those who did the demonizing were the frivolous, unserious, know-nothing extremists, this narrative persists, so that -- even now, when most Americans have turned against this war -- the only way to avoid being an "extremist," and to be rewarded with the "centrist" mantle, is to support the continuation of this war in one form or another.

If you thought the war was a good idea at the time, remember that you had a lot of help in coming to that conclusion. I hope that makes you even more mad as hell than I am, and even more committed to not taking this anymore.

We should be mad. One of the pillars of our American democracy went completely comatose at the switch as the train hurtled toward an unfinished bridge.

(Well, I should qualify "completely." A handful of people got it right, and we're all indebted to the reporters who put it all on the line to get a little truth out of Iraq. It's a damned shame that, as an institution, speaking truth to power is the exception, not the rule, in today's Fourth Estate.)

This issue is the main reason for this Brigadoon blog (which I plan to reactivate this time each year).

Not to put too fine a point on it: what the fuck is wrong with the American news media, and what is our best hope for fixing it?

And if we can't fix it, I urge you to use this occasion this year and every year to help awaken concern about this in our fellow citizens.

Like it or not, old media still has a powerful influence on public opinion. You can bet the farm that it will make and break candidates during this election cycle, as it has in every cycle in our lifetimes.

The bumper stickers say "Bush Lied, People Died." But would he have gotten away with it without the media by his side?

We need to grab this bull by the horns, or failing that, to raise awareness about what comes out its other end.

[USA_1]

1. Senate Resolution This Week ...

... I notice that nobody is talking about it here on DU.

Will Democrats remain silent or will they stand up and DEMAND that the Senate pass that resolution?

Silence is death. The passivity of the Democratic Party has got to end and it has to be NOW.

[USA_1]

2. For the Record ...

... should have mentioned above that I have written 3 letters to Senators demanding that they endorse the resolution and will write a few more.

Have you?

[USA_1]

13. Looks Like nobody Here Cared To Make The Senate ...

... tell off Bush. What a shame -- too much Democratic Party passivity, again.

[lwcon]

14. Repubs blocked it

See: http://www.correntewire.com/blood_colored_kool_aid

[gasperc]

3. I prefer a binding law

I called my Senator, Levin, this morning and told him I appreciate his efforts but feel that a non-binding resolution is too weak and that an attempt should be made to pass a cinding law to cap the escalation and begin drawing down the troops. The debate is more important than a filibuster.

[lwcon]

5. This quote from "No End In Sight" filmmaker...

Charles Ferguson has http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2007/02/sight-lines.html">got me thinking:

I don’t think, frankly, that anybody has any particularly good ideas about how to end this conflict soon or well. I think that now it’s primarily, not exclusively, but primarily a matter of avoiding the very worst, which could be far, far worse than things are now. No one really knows the number of people who have already been killed in the war, but the best estimate suggests that the Iraqi civilian death toll is now somewhere around a quarter of a million people. And if we’re not careful, if Iraq truly descends into complete, full-scale anarchy and civil war, which is quite possible, especially if other countries in the region become more assertive militarily and in supporting various factions in Iraq, we could see millions of people being killed.

We’re not going to re-invade Iraq with a half-million men and women and depose the current government. The current government is a Shi’ite government, and it is increasingly independent of, and in fact increasingly hostile to the United States.

Mostly I feel we should be aggressively working toward a fast pullout, because our presence largely aggravates the situation. But no matter what we do, that Pottery Barn is going to be in pretty sorry shape, and a safety hazard to the entire region.

[progressoid]

4. Sarah Vowell...

"...in 2001. When he took the presidential oath, I cried."

Me too. In 2004.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

6. Great post

I can never forget those doctored pictures or those un-believable number of weapons he came up with. It sounded like something from a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh broadcast. Why couldn't the average American see it to? Hopefully the people will never be fooled again.

[gratuitous]

7. I remember the aftermath of Powell's Prevaricating Powerpoint Presentation

Oh, so many learned and wise heads that solemnly intoned that the case for invasion had now been put forth by a trustworthy and authoritative voice, and that there was no doubt that if the United States didn't strike and strike soon, we'd all be speaking Farsi and eating curried cous-cous by the Fourth of July.

There were about three voices in the major media who said that while Mr. Powell certainly cut a dashing figure, the substance of his presentation was notably lacking on just a couple of things like evidence and facts. But otherwise it looked pretty airtight, even to them.

And folks who asked pertinent questions were drowned out by the thump-thump of war drum, eagerly pounded by an enthusiastic media who imagined pretty pictures of bombs and stuff exploding over a place far, far away for a little while, pumping up ratings, and giving them all that coveted "war correspondent" cachet. Well, four years later, there are still lots of things blowing up in that place far, far away, but for some reason the major media aren't quite so eager to show those sexy explosions. I guess when it's American troops and not anonymous foreigners getting blown to bits it's not quite as exciting or sexy.

But it will be again! Oh yes, it will be great television again. Someday, someday.

[babydollhead]

8. was it Powell who insisted they cover the Picasso painting?

I forget the name of the painting. But it is about the agony of war. and it was covered.

[babydollhead]

what i mean is....

A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room. It was placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. Commissioned and donated by Nelson Rockefeller, it is not quite as monochromatic as the original, using several shades of brown. On February 5, 2003, a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Diplomats, however, told journalists that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq. <8>


See also

[babydollhead]

9. what i mean is....

A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room. It was placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. Commissioned and donated by Nelson Rockefeller, it is not quite as monochromatic as the original, using several shades of brown. On February 5, 2003, a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Diplomats, however, told journalists that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq. <8>


See also

[babydollhead]

10. what i mean is....

A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room. It was placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. Commissioned and donated by Nelson Rockefeller, it is not quite as monochromatic as the original, using several shades of brown. On February 5, 2003, a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Diplomats, however, told journalists that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq. <8>


See also

[babydollhead]

11. what i mean is....

A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room. It was placed there as a reminder of the horrors of war. Commissioned and donated by Nelson Rockefeller, it is not quite as monochromatic as the original, using several shades of brown. On February 5, 2003, a large blue curtain was placed to cover this work, so that it would not be visible in the background when Colin Powell and John Negroponte gave press conferences at the United Nations. On the following day, it was claimed that the curtain was placed there at the request of television news crews, who had complained that the wild lines and screaming figures made for a bad backdrop, and that a horse's hindquarters appeared just above the faces of any speakers. Diplomats, however, told journalists that the Bush Administration pressured UN officials to cover the tapestry, rather than have it in the background while Powell or other U.S. diplomats argued for war on Iraq. <8>


See also

[lwcon]

12. Thanks to everyone...

... who voted this topic onto the Greatest page.

I deeply believe that we must remember this historic day, to remind ourselves that we should never again be led to war for false reasons and that our news media establishment is dangerously broken and has blood on its hands.

It's nice to get validation that others feel the same way about that fateful day.

Even better would be if we can find the cure for what ails us.

If you would, please post on the comments log your ideas about how we can prevent this from ever happening again. Something terrible became officially lost on 2/5/03, and for this country to be what it once was we have to get to get it back or find a new way.

Yours in peace (someday),
lwcon / "Vast Left"