PressEthic

In today's Washington Post, reporter Walter Pincus revisits the stances of several Democrats way back in 2002.

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power.

The article revives statements from several Democrats, made at the time, indicting concerns that invading Iraq could lead to a dangerous destabilization, an increased terrorist threat, a long-term commitment of 100,000 U.S. troops, and strengthening the hand of Iran.

Pincus notes that the Washington Post did not give adequate space to the reasons for dissenting votes on the war resolution:

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

Editor & Publisher notes that " Pincus was one of the few top people at the paper to push for more skeptical coverage of the run up to the war."

Editor Greg Mitchell goes on to do his own review, looking retrospectively at the editorials that appeared in leading papers four years ago.

An E&P survey of editorials in more than a dozen major papers around that October 2002 vote finds that few sounded any alarms.

He found the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times offered praise for the vote in favor of the war.

Editorial pages that voiced objections were the San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times.

Editor & Publisher ends the report with a pertinent question:

(The San Francisco Chronicle) editorial closed with a sad reflection: "There were simply too few voices of reason and restraint on Capitol Hill this week." And on the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers. What will they do next time?

Let's hope that the publications that were mistaken take advantage of the light shed in hindsight and learn not to be so docile.