the press and the war

Editor and Publisher reprints articles from the New York times circa May 2003, to see how the paper covered Bush's now infamous "Mission Accomplished" stunt, which supposedly marked the end of the Iraq war (or at least, the end of "major combat operations"). The argument seems to be that the Times was a willing shill for the pro-war agenda, and uncritically accepted Bush's self-nomination for sainthood.

But if you actually read the excerpts, it seems to me that the Times did a pretty good job of hinting at the complexities of the situation--Judith Miller excepted (she seems to have served largely as a mouthpiece for Ahmed Chalabi).

A few examples:

Elisabeth Bumiller examines the political calculus of the moment: WASHINGTON, May 1 -- President Bush's made-for-television address tonight on the carrier Abraham Lincoln was a powerful, Reaganesque finale to a six-week war. But beneath the golden images of a president steaming home with his troops toward the California coast lay the cold political and military realities that drove Mr. Bush's advisers to create the moment.

Dexter Filkins and Ian Fisher presciently examine internal Iraqi conflicts: BAGHDAD, May 2 -- The war in Iraq has officially ended, but the momentous task of recreating a new Iraqi nation seems hardly to have begun. Three weeks after Saddam Hussein fell from power, American troops are straining to manage the forces this war has unleashed: the anger, frustration and competing ambitions of a nation suppressed for three decades.
In a virtual power vacuum, with the relationship between American military and civilian authority seeming ill defined, new political parties, Kurds and Shiite religious groups are asserting virtual governmental authority in cities and villages across the country, sometimes right under the noses of American soldiers.

The Editorial board stayed in attack mode: "From the moment that Mr. Bush made his intention of invading Iraq clear, the question was never whether American troops would succeed, or whether the regime they toppled would not be exposed to the world as a despicable one. The question was, and still is, whether the administration has the patience to rebuild Iraq and set it on a course toward stable, enlightened governance. The chaotic situation in Afghanistan is no billboard for American talent at nation-building. The American administration of postwar Iraq has so far failed to match the efficiency and effectiveness of the military invasion. But as the United States came to the end of one phase of the Iraqi engagement last night, there was still time to do better."

Of course, you also have Tom Friedman:

President Bush may have declared the war in Iraq effectively over. But, judging from my own e-mail box -- where conservative readers are bombing me for not applauding enough the liberation of Iraq, and liberals for selling out to George Bush -- the war over the war still burns on here.

Conservatives now want to use the victory in Iraq to defeat all liberal ideas at home, and to make this war a model for America's relations with the world, while liberals -- fearing all that -- are still quietly rooting for Mr. Bush to fail.

In hindsight, the Times could have been harsher, but if America's paper of record is to blame for complicity in pulling America into war--and keeping it there--we'll need more evidence than their coverage of Bush's aircraft carrier stunt.