MSNBC selectively remembers the Iraq War

Updated: Morning Joe and Luke Russert leave out some important context. Like how much MSNBC pushed for war VIDEO

Topics: Video, Iraq war, Politics, Media, MSNBC, Joe Scarborough, Morning Joe, Bob Woodward, Luke Russert, Editor's Picks,

MSNBC selectively remembers the Iraq WarJoe Scarborough and Luke Russert (Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/AP/Evan Agostini)

[UPDATE BELOW] MSNBC today ran two very interesting segments addressing the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. In one, Luke Russert interviewed veteran NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel on the state of Iraq today (spoiler: not great). In another, Joe Scarborough hosted a large panel to discus how the Iraq War happened and what went wrong.

The Russert segment is sort of bizarre, referring to “that big anniversary” and completely ignoring the reasons the Iraq War started. It concludes — after Engel explains how Iraq is once again in a sectarian civil war — with Russert essentially asserting the inevitability of a military strike against Iran, saying they could be “months” away from building nuclear weapons.

Here’s the Morning Joe segment. It’s long, but well worth watching. Bob Woodward’s presence adds a note of dark comedy to the proceedings. No one bothers to mention any of his horrible pre-war punditry, or his culpability for the misleading journalism the Washington Post was producing at the time.

Scarborough also repeatedly interrupts Michael Isikoff, co-author of a very good book on how the Bush administration, abetted by the press, sold the war to Congress and the public, while Isikoff is in the middle of pointing out how the intelligence was never as clear-cut as many claimed it was. “We could all go back 10 years, and again I am not doing George W. Bush’s bidding here, but wasn’t the preponderance of the intelligence coming from the CIA, coming from our intel community, coming from intel communities across the globe, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” Scarborough tells Isikoff in a statement that was phrased as a question but wasn’t intended to get an actual answer.

Scarborough then played a little package that I think he put together himself, in which he totally nails Democratic hypocrites who initially supported the war and then turned against it when it went bad.

Some of this is just patently dishonest. Nancy Pelosi and Carl Levin both actually voted against the Iraq Resolution. The very next sentence in the Pelosi speech this clip quotes explicitly states her opposition to the war. Calls for Saddam Hussein to be “disarmed” are not the same as calls for Saddam Hussein to be ousted. But the broader point that lots of Democrats and lots of “liberal media” types were for the war before they were against it is obviously true. It’s something liberals and antiwar people have always been mad about. It’s why Barack Obama is now president instead of Hillary Clinton. And calling out the Post and the Times but ignoring NBC News is the cheapest of cheap shots.

Both of these segments show how incredibly little anyone learned from very recent history.

You Might Also Like

In Luke Russert’s assessment of our decade-long disaster, the history of the Iraq War begins the day President Bush announced that it had begun. There is no reference to the reasons, stated or unstated, that we launched the invasion. There’s no historical context or mention of the many justifications and false claims that convinced so many people that the war was necessary. It just happened, one day, and now we are here, 10 years later. That war is finished, now What Is To Be Done About Iran?

In Scarborough’s version of the run-up to war, flag-waving with-us-or-against-us cheerleaders like him are essentially blameless, because everyone agreed that Iraq posed an existential threat. His questions for Isikoff and his cute little video package are designed to buttress that convenient perspective. When he repeats that the Washington Post and the New York Times were both making the case for war, he’s not wrong, but he’s also doing exactly what everyone in the press did back then: selectively reading only those pieces making that case and ignoring the many, many stories that poured cold water on every single claim made by advocates for invasion.

The Times didn’t just publish Judy Miller. They also published James Risen, who in 2002 debunked the myth that Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi Intelligence in Prague (something Cheney had claimed on “Meet the Press” — an NBC show hosted by Luke Russert’s father — a month earlier) and who in early 2003 reported on the pressure CIA analysts felt to politicize their intelligence. Risen’s stories were rarely on the front page — Miller owned the front page — but one cool thing about newspapers is that you can read past the front page.

At the Washington Post, Walter Pincus debunked trumped-up Iraq WMD claims in multiple stories that Scarborough also apparently didn’t see. The Knight-Ridder papers had some of the best pre-war reporting in the nation — and people like Scarborough ignored all of it. None of this was hidden — liberal bloggers all read and linked to these stories — people like Scarborough just chose to ignore all of it, in favor of supporting a war that made everyone feel super-patriotic.

Much of the pre-Iraq journalism, good and bad, is easily accessible. What is harder to find is the pre-Iraq TV news conversation, which did just as much as Judy Miller to make being pro-war the Only Serious Position. MSNBC at the time decided to go full-on pro-war as a ratings strategy, and so it canceled a show by liberal peacenik Phil Donahue and hired a bunch of pro-war conservatives, including a former congressman named Joe Scarborough.

Joe Scarborough has a TV show because of his boundless enthusiasm for waging the Iraq War. This is what he sounded like, on the subject of people who opposed the war, in April of 2003:

The two commentators were gleeful as they skewered the news media and antiwar protesters in Hollywood.

”They are absolutely committing sedition, or treason,” one commentator, Michael Savage, said of the protesters one recent night.

His colleague, Joe Scarborough, responded: ”These leftist stooges for anti-American causes are always given a free pass. Isn’t it time to make them stand up and be counted for their views?”

That’s the problem with the “who could’ve possibly foreseen that this was all bullshit” stance: Lots of people saw that it was bullshit, and they were ridiculed and marginalized by people like Scarborough.

So yes, Joe Scarborough has noted, correctly, that some people were opportunistically for the war, and then opportunistically against it. Good for him. But he still has not acknowledged that lots of people were always against the war, that those people turned out to be correct, and that he himself and his network were not caught up in an unavoidable, tragic mistake, they were bullying cheerleaders for that mistake.

UPDATE: Luke Russert Tweets:

This is the segment he links to. I’ll embed it, why not.

Please, watch it very closely. Because it has precisely nothing at all to do with the media’s role, let alone MSNBC’s role, in making the case for war, and marginalizing those who opposed the war. It has nothing to do with the false intelligence and trumped-up threats and incoherent justifications of the Bush administration officials, or the role people like Russert’s father played in promoting, and not challenging, those officials. It is an interview with a Democratic Congressman who regrets his vote for the war, just like Joe Scarborough’s little video was about Democrats who supported the war, and now feel bad. Russert asks if Smith regrets the war, but not why he voted for it.

So, no, Luke, I only left it out because it wasn’t a very interesting interview.

Alex Pareene

Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon and is the author of "The Rude Guide to Mitt." Email him at apareene@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @pareene

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 11
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails
    Martyna Blaszczyk/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 1

    Pond de l'Archeveche - hundreds thousands of padlocks locked to a bridge by random couples, as a symbol of their eternal love. After another iconic Pont des Arts bridge was cleared of the padlocks in 2010 (as a safety measure), people started to place their love symbols on this one. Today both of the bridges are full of love locks again.

    Anders Andersson/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 2

    A bird's view of tulip fields near Voorhout in the Netherlands, photographed with a drone in April 2015.

    Aashit Desai/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 3

    Angalamman Festival is celebrated every year in a small town called Kaveripattinam in Tamil Nadu. Devotees, numbering in tens of thousands, converge in this town the day after Maha Shivratri to worship the deity Angalamman, meaning 'The Guardian God'. During the festival some of the worshippers paint their faces that personifies Goddess Kali. Other indulge in the ritual of piercing iron rods throughout their cheeks.

    Allan Gichigi/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 4

    Kit Mikai is a natural rock formation about 40m high found in Western Kenya. She goes up the rocks regularly to meditate. Kit Mikai, Kenya

    Chris Ludlow/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 5

    On a weekend trip to buffalo from Toronto we made a pit stop at Niagara Falls on the Canadian side. I took this shot with my nexus 5 smartphone. I was randomly shooting the falls themselves from different viewpoints when I happened to get a pretty lucky and interesting shot of this lone seagull on patrol over the falls. I didn't even realize I had captured it in the shot until I went back through the photos a few days later

    Jassen T./National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 6

    Incredibly beautiful and extremely remote. Koehn Lake, Mojave Desert, California. Aerial Image.

    Howard Singleton/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 7

    Lucky timing! The oxpecker was originally sitting on hippo's head. I could see the hippo was going into a huge yawn (threat display?) and the oxpecker had to vacate it's perch. When I snapped the pic, the oxpecker appeared on the verge of being inhaled and was perfectly positioned between the massive gaping jaws of the hippo. The oxpecker also appears to be screeching in terror and back-pedaling to avoid being a snack!

    Abrar Mohsin/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 8

    The Yetis of Nepal - The Aghoris as they are called are marked by colorful body paint and clothes

    Madeline Crowley/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 9

    Taken from a zodiac raft on a painfully cold, rainy day

    Ian Bird/National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest

    National Geographic Traveler Photo Contest Entries

    Slide 10

    This wave is situated right near the CBD of Sydney. Some describe it as the most dangerous wave in Australia, due to it breaking on barnacle covered rocks only a few feet deep and only ten metres from the cliff face. If you fall off you could find yourself in a life and death situation. This photo was taken 300 feet directly above the wave from a helicopter, just as the surfer is pulling into the lip of the barrel.

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>