Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Conservative Diversity at the Washington Post

By Jeff Cohen, AlterNet. Posted September 15, 2006.


The Washington Post hires a Bush speechwriter whose words helped sell the War on Iraq.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Jeff Cohen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Few media marching bands have beat the Iraq war drums more frantically and with more influence than the editorial pages of the Washington Post. On Monday, the Post announced the hiring of another drummer boy, one who played a key propaganda role inside the Bush White House.

The Post editorial pages were an echo chamber for prewar distortions and paranoid fantasies originated by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). So it's grotesquely fitting that the Post would hire, as an op-ed columnist, Michael Gerson, Bush's top speechwriter who, as a key wordsmith within WHIG, helped originate the flights of rhetorical fancy that so dazzled the Post's laptop warriors. Gerson spun the deceit; the Post peddled it. Now they'll operate under the same roof.

In explaining why the Post was adding yet another pro-war voice to its op-ed page, hawkish editorial page editor Fred Hiatt described Gerson as being "a different kind of conservative from the other conservatives on our page." Thanks, Fred, for all the diversity.

In their new book "Hubris," Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that it was Gerson who --

  • inserted references to the yellowcake-from-Niger tale into various Bush speeches, including the 2003 State of the Union.
  • helped prepare Secretary of State Colin Powell's dishonest and bellicose speech to the U.N.
  • conceived Team Bush's trademark paranoid "soundbite" warning of a potential Iraq nuclear program: "The first sign of a smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud."

According to "Hubris," the "mushroom cloud" line was intended for a Bush speech, but was too good to hold. It was first deployed in September 2002 by anonymous White House aides in a New York Times front-page scare story (by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon) warning that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons." On CNN that day, Condoleezza Rice declared: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." And Gerson's line became a standard and manipulative war cry from then on.

Speechwriter Gerson should be right at home at the Washington Post. From September 2002 through February 2003, the Post editorialized 26 times in favor of the Iraq war. As Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman have documented, its op-ed page was also dominated by hawks screaming for war. War skeptics were denounced as "fools" and "liars" and worse, and the skeptics were not given space to respond.

As Gerson's "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" soundbite took flight, Al Gore made an Iraq speech questioning "preemptive war." On the Post's op-ed page, Gore's speech was "dishonest, cheap, low" and "wretched ... vile ... contemptible." And that was all in one column. Another called it "a series of cheap shots."

By contrast, the error-filled Colin Powell speech at the U.N. (that Gerson worked on) was hailed at the Post with almost Pravda-like unanimity. An editorial -- headlined "Irrefutable" -- declared: "It is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." And the Post's op-ed page from right to "left" embraced Powell's speech.

"When reading the Post's prewar coverage," summarized journalist Robert Parry, "there was a whiff of totalitarianism in which dissidents never get space to express their opinions but are still excoriated by the official media. When the state speaks, however, the same media hails the government's brilliance."

Gerson and his new colleagues at the Post worked together to help bring us one of the worst foreign policy debacles in our nation's history. Newspapers are supposed to hold discredited public officials to account. The Post is hiring him.

It's partly because of the Post's inexcusable coverage before the war, and its ongoing pro-war editorial bias, that I will be joining Scott Ritter, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern and other activists at Camp Democracy in Washington, D.C., this Tuesday, Sept. 19, for a public forum on the media's role in Iraq and Iran.

There will also be a protest march to the Washington Post headquarters that evening.With the newspaper's hiring of Gerson, I know an appropriate slogan: "Two, four, six, eight/Separate the press and state."

Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
diversity?
Posted by: edith on Sep 15, 2006 1:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the Post wanted conservative diversity, it would regularly publish the columns of antiwar conservative Pat Buchanan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ANGER SELLS
Posted by: laime22 on Sep 15, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if the Post isn't going after the anger factor. The competing talking heads on cable news shows attract a lot of attention, because they invoke a lot of anger on both sides of any issue.
By virtue of Gerson's history, many people will already be angry before reading the first word of his first article. You can/t say the words 'Iraq' or 'Bush' without evryone's blood pressure rising Interest in the Post will certainly increase as a result.
This country is already so full of anger, we should start worrying about a tipping point, where advocacy is bypassed to go straight to extreme action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How the Republican and Nazi Parties differ
Posted by: citizenjoe on Sep 15, 2006 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not all fascist parties are the same. The republicans are a conservative party that has been taken over by a fascist faction-- the Bush cabal. The Nazis were fascist in essence, the republicans have accepted and practice fascist ideology. To do so requires a propaganda apparatus. The Nazis controlled the press by force and censorship, the Republicans get it effortlessly from the corporate press, in this case the WP. Lets welcome the Graham family to the fascist fold. I fear America is lost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Sep 15, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have feared Ameica is lost ever since "we" lost the Florida election in 2000 and events since have only confirmed my fears. I have no real hope that even if the Rs lose this Fall's election things won't change all that much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yarn
Posted by: yarn on Sep 15, 2006 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you folks actually read the Post's editorials and op ed pieces? They're better than most. Don't you think there are media much more in need of your efforts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

frank67
Posted by: frank67 on Sep 20, 2006 10:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Post is not even a "a mere shadow of its former self." The paper that brought you Watergate" and the consequent demise of "Tricky Dick", now brings you "Bush BS" 24/7!
What a waste of trees!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]