

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As President Donald Trump spent the early days of 2020 instigating and then backing down from a potentially catastrophic confrontation with Iran, corporate media in the U.S. turned to the very same people who promoted the country's worst foreign policy disaster in a generation to advocate for repeating the mistakes of two decades ago.
The decision of networks and cable news outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to bring on a stream of past advocates for and architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq was panned by progressives who watched in horror and frustration as the same arguments were deployed in service of all-out war with Iran.
"It's War Inc. all over again," tweeted The Nation's Dave Zirin.
Trump's ordered assassination of Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani on January 3 proved the catalyst for escalated tensions between the U.S. and Iran. It also opened the door for news outlets to welcome back some of the key Bush-era war cheerleaders.
"In a sane and just society, the architects of the nearly 17-year-old war in Iraq--which is still ongoing and has left an estimated half-million people dead--would face war crimes charges and those who cheered them on would be thoroughly discredited."
--Jessica Schulberg, HuffPost
The more things change, the more they stay the same, wrote Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson.
"The Trump administration's sudden, violent confrontation with Iran stands in contrast to the methodical march to war with Iraq under George W. Bush and his neoconservative cabinet in 2003," Dickinson wrote. "But the rhetoric around the two conflicts has been strikingly similar--as has the reliance on 'razor thin' evidence of an imminent threat to establish a cause for war."
Soleimani's death by drone strike was celebrated in real time by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, who spent the run-up to the Iraq War selling the public on the necessity of the conflict.
"I think it is entirely possible that this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate this killing of Soleimani," Fleischer told Fox in the hours after Soleimani's killing, flanked by Bush administration advisor Karl Rove.
In contrast to Fleischer's prediction, Soleimani's funeral and remembrance ceremonies over the weekend turned out mourners enraged at the assassination across Iran in the millions. Former Vice President Dick Cheney's similar claim in 2002 that U.S. troops in Iraq would be "welcomed as liberators" was equally true.
Fleischer was nonetheless welcomed back to Fox on Tuesday and Wednesday to give his thoughts on the conflict and attack Democrats for questioning the rush to war.
"It's concerning, to say the least, to see some of the biggest backers of the Iraq War--an abject failure that, coupled with the ongoing war in Afghanistan, has cost the United States trillions of dollars and thousands of lives--are publicly (and in some instances, gleefully) opining about the potential impact of war with Iran, in some cases even using the same rhetorical stylings to do so," said Vox's Jane Coaston of the similarity in rhetoric.
On MSNBC, which bills itself as a liberal alternative to right-wing behemoth Fox, host Ari Melber on January 7 in the wake of Iranian retaliation for the assassination spoke to former General Barry McCaffrey, who called for a devastating response against Iran.
"Our only good response at this point is an overwhelming dominance of air and naval power that can be employed against the Iranian homeland," said McCaffrey.
Unmentioned in the segment was McCaffrey's position on the board of Raytheon, a major U.S. weapons suppplier.
The next day, Melber hosted former Sen. Joe Lieberman, a one-time Democrat whose embrace of the Bush administration's push for war across the Middle East led to an unofficial expulsion from the Democratic Party in 2006, though Lieberman was re-elected as an independent.
Not disclosed by Melber to his audience? The fact that Lieberman works for Israel Aerospace Industries, a defense company with $1 billion in sales in the U.S.
Melber did not respond to a request for comment at press time.
As Popular Information's Judd Legum reported Thursday morning, Lieberman and McCaffrey are hardly alone in advocating for war in the media without revealing their financial interests in the conflict. Legum lists nine former government officials with ties to the defense industry who are being presented to the American people as experts without noting their connections to the military industrial complex.
One of the people profiled by Legum is Michael Chertoff, the former Bush-era secretary of Homeland Security. On CNN, Chertoff claimed Trump has unilateral power to attack Iran and start a war.
But, Legum pointed out, there was some context for those remarks conveniently left out of the coverage:
Neither Chertoff nor CNN disclosed that Chertoff is chairman of the board of the American subsidiary of BAE Systems, the fourth largest weapons manufacturer in the world.
Print media was not immune to the lack of accountability shown by tv. On January 5, the Washington Post ran a piece by former Bush administration national security advisor Stephen Hadley saluting the assassination of Soleimani and calling for war if necessary.
That Hadley is on the board of Raytheon alongside MSNBC's McCaffrey did not receive a mention.
The onus for disclosure, wrote Eyes on the Ties reporter Rob Galbraith, is on the Post's editor Fred Hiatt:
Running another hawkish column by Hadley without noting his enormous financial incentive to stoke the engines of war shows that the Post in general, and Hiatt in particular, has failed to learn anything from Syria, Iraq, or any of the other times that war profiteers have used their pages to clamor for missile strikes and invasions. This is made all the more egregious since, however dismissively, Hiatt acknowledged Hadley's conflict of interest in 2013, and yet still went ahead and printed his op-ed today without disclosing this conflict--again.
"It's not 2003, but it sure feels like it," wrote HuffPost's Jessica Schulberg in a piece detailing a number of the Bush administration officials and varied Iraq War boosters brought on by the corporate media to discuss the push for war.
"In a sane and just society, the architects of the nearly 17-year-old war in Iraq--which is still ongoing and has left an estimated half-million people dead--would face war crimes charges and those who cheered them on would be thoroughly discredited," Schulberg continued. "Instead, they are the 'experts' praising President Donald Trump's decision to assassinate top Iranian military commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani and offering the public insight on the way forward with Iran."
Trump critics and peace advocates watched in horror Thursday night and Friday morning as some of the top architects of the Iraq War took to the corporate media to spin a narrative aimed at retroactively convincing Americans that the killing of Iranian military official Qasem Soleimani was essential to the safety of the U.S.--a replica of the run-up to the Iraq War nearly two decades ago.
Following reports that President Donald Trump ordered the airstrike that killed Soleimani, the major general of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, former George W. Bush administration officials were among those who media outlets called on to make a case for the act.
"CNN is allowing a parade of Republican lawmakers to go on air and cheerlead for war with Iran, and barely bothering to ask any of them how the U.S. keeps the region safe or what the plan is. We've learned much less since 2003 than we should have."
--Matthew Chapman, Raw StoryFormer White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer suggested, as conservatives did in 2003 regarding Iraqi civilians, that Iranians would likely celebrate the killing of Soleimani--presuming to speak for demonstrators who have decried economic hardships in the face of U.S. sanctions and government mismanagement in recent weeks.
"The Iranian people have been leading a revolution, a rebellion against their government, knowing what a dictatorship it is," Fleischer told Fox News. "So I think it is entirely possible this is going to be a catalyst inside Iran where the people celebrate the killing of Soleimani."
Journalist Judd Legum wrote that Fox is "getting the band back together" as right-wingers rework their 2003 claims to apply to Iran, joined by Trump administration officials like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Pompeo appeared on CNN Friday to claim that Iranian civilians "will view the American action last night as giving them freedom"--even as thousands of people took to the streets in Tehran and other cities in Iran to protest the Trump administration's actions.
A number of observers denounced cable news networks for offering a platform to pro-war extremists while ignoring the voices of peace advocates and critics.
"Former Bush appointees who thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea?" tweeted journalism professor and Guardian columnist Christian Christensen. "Maybe not be the most objective commentators on US interests in the region."
"It's War Inc. all over again," wrote Dave Zirin, sports editor for The Nation. "No voices calling for peace. No voices critical of empire. Just establishment media and current and former Pentagon officials who feed off the trillion-dollar war machine."
News networks demonstrated their eagerness to present an uncritical view of the Trump administration's reasoning for the airstrike, which came days after the president, without evidence, accused Iran of orchestrating an attack at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.
CNBC's declaration that the U.S. had "just [taken] out the world's number one bad guy" was condemned as "journalistic malpractice" by writer Kelsey Atherton.
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch wrote about the contrast between the Trump administration's sudden escalation in Iran and the run-up to George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of iraq--prior to which the president, his top advisers, and other conservative commentators spent more than a year insisting the U.S. military should defeat Saddam Hussein.
Trump ordered the airstrike that killed Soleimani before "99 percent" of Americans had even heard of the official, wrote Bunch.
"Within minutes, the same people who brought us the endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere suddenly showed up on TV to declare [Soleimani] was the worst person in the world," he tweeted.
"Where is the speech to the American people that lays out to the everyday citizen 1) who was Soleimani 2) what are his crimes against the U.S. 3) how does killing him make us safer 4) what is our plan for the messy aftermath?" Bunch asked, calling the administration's unilateral move without lawmakers' knowledge--much less congressional approval--"imperialistic and authoritarian."
Filmmaker and activist Michael Moore added that with a steady stream of commentary from Fleischer, Rove, Pompeo, and other conservatives clamoring to move ahead with war in Iran, Americans will be "trained to hate" Soleimani by the end of the week--even if they had never heard of him before Thursday night.
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (July 14)
Note from Russell Mokhiber:
On July 14, 2003, Ari Fleischer held his last White House press briefing. He left the White House to start a consulting firm that will advise corporate executives on how to handle the news media. The new White House Press Secretary is Scott McClellan. I'll continue this feature under the headline: "Scottie & Me."
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, in the 2002 election campaign, the Republican Party took in $7.2 million from convicted criminals. Is the President okay with his party taking millions of dollars from convicted criminals? Ari
Ari Fleischer: I have no idea what you are referring to -
Mokhiber: I'm referring to, let me tell you -
Fleischer: Obviously, if money is received - both parties from people who are later found out to be people who shouldn't be giving money - then it gets returned.
Mokhiber: These are actually major corporations convicted of crimes. ADM gave $1.7 million, Pfizer $1.1 million, Chevron $875,000. Is the President okay with those companies giving direct contributions to the Republican Party after being convicted of crimes?
Fleischer: Russell, as you know, the Presidential campaign takes no money from corporations.
Mokhiber: I'm talking about the party.
Fleischer: Well, you'll have to address your questions to the party.
Mokhiber: Well, as the titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I don't know what information you have where you can that this corporation is a criminal.
Mokhiber: Convicted - they pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Were the crimes of such a nature that they are no longer in existence?
Mokhiber: ADM pled guilty to one of the most massive antitrust crimes and paid a $100 million fine.
Fleischer: I think you need to address any questions about specific companies with the specifics in mind, and if that company is still doing business and is still in operation, that means it is still in operation with the law, and every case is individual, and the party decides about whether the money needs to be returned or not. But I don't have specifics.
Mokhiber: One follow-up.
Fleischer: Go ahead, Russell.
Mokhiber: One follow up. It's actually a broad philosophical question. Is the President okay with taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I informed you that the President does not take money from corporations.
Mokhiber: No, I'm talking about - as titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals. For example, in Enron -
Fleischer: I just have to differ with your notion that because a company has been fined -
Mokhiber: No, they pled guilty to crimes. They pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Even so - I don't know what specifics you are referring to - that that company is a convicted criminal.
Mokhiber: If you plead guilty to a crime, you are a criminal.
Fleischer: Does that mean that they need to go out of business?
Mokhiber: I'm asking - should the Republican Party take money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: You need to address your question to the Republican Party.
Mokhiber: But he's the titular head of the party.
Fleischer: And the titular head of the party refers you to the party.
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (May 27)
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, there is a new documentary film by an Irish journalist, Jamie Doran. He alleges -
Ari Fleischer: I haven't seen it.
Mokhiber: Well, let me tell you about it. He alleges U.S. military involvement in a massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan. He says that the 3,000 prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S. allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. Then, witnesses in the film said that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. U.S. special forces redirected -
Fleischer: And your question is?
Mokhiber: Well, you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm giving you some background. One more thing - U.S. special forces redirected the containers carrying the dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.
Fleischer: I think I understand your movie review.
Mokhiber: And there is a mass grave of 3,000 Taliban prisoners. Question - does the President know about this massacre? Is he ordering an investigation?
Fleischer: Number one, I would not use a movie as a basis to make assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. If your question is about a factual matter in Afghanistan dealing with military actions, that is a question you should address to the Pentagon. I'm not aware of any such -
Mokhiber: Is the President aware of it?
Fleischer: I don't know if he is aware of this movie or not - I would doubt it.
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (May 14)
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you said on April 10th, about weapons of mass destruction, "That is what this war was about." On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the group directing U.S. search efforts for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is winding down operations without finding proof that Saddam Hussein kept clandestine stocks of outlawed arms.
Ari Fleischer: Efforts aren't winding down, efforts are cranking up. As Dr. Rice said in an exclusive interview with Reuters, we are sending in additional teams of people and increasing the amount of inspectors, the amount of people who go through documentation, people who are more expert, to continue to go in. And nothing has changed from what I said on April.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that. Let's -- hypothetically, these weapons are --
Ari Fleischer: You're beginning a sentence with the wrong word. (Laughter.) You just hurt your cause.
Mokhiber: If The Washington Post report is correct, and weapons that Secretary Powell said are there, are not there, I'm wondering if -- what are the chances that you were misled?
Ari Fleischer: No, I think that you've heard it from enough officials to know that you should not begin a sentence with a hypothetical. We remain confident in all the statements we've made about it.
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you say the President is going to the AMA [American Medical Association] tomorrow to give a speech. There is also a group of victims of medical malpractice who are in town. They want to meet with the President. One of them is a gentleman named Richard Flagg. He is a Vietnam Vet who voted for the President. I just spoke to him and he said that he was diagnosed with a tumor in his left lung. The surgeon took out his right lung -- his healthy right lung. He's now ashamed that he voted for the President because the President is seeking to limit what he can get in terms of non-economic damages. I'm wondering two things -- why won't the President meet with victims of medical malpractice just to get their point of view? And two, why won't he meet also with a wide range of Americans who have asked to meet with the President, who are opposed to the war, including religious leaders?
Ari Fleischer: On the first question, I would urge everybody to be at the speech tomorrow. The President, in his remarks tomorrow is going to talk about issues involving medical liability. And he's going to talk about problems that do come up with doctors, and mistakes that can be made by doctors, and patients' right to just and fair compensation. Patient safety remains of paramount concern. I think it would be interesting on what the President has to say on that important part of this issue tomorrow. As always, the President meets with a variety of groups and hears a variety of concerns. And we'll keep you informed of who he meets with.
Mokhiber: Has he met with any of those representatives, Ari?
[Ari moves on]
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, you said yesterday that if we go to war with Iraq, the Iraqi leadership, including Saddam Hussein, would be a legitimate target under international law. Does this mean that if we go to war with Iraq, our leadership would be a legitimate target under international law?
Ari Fleischer: I think you should address that to an international lawyer. But the point remains the same -- our nation is threatened, all people in our nation are threatened by Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. We know that terrorists desire to strike the United States. We know terrorists desire to strike the leadership of the United States. We don't know definitively if that fourth airplane was heading toward the White House or the Congress. So we do know that we are at war with people who want to seek maximum damage on our country and its leadership.
Mokhiber: But you made a judgment yesterday under international law, that Saddam would be a legitimate target. So does that mean our leadership would be a legitimate target?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, I have no intention of becoming Saddam Hussein's international lawyer. You can find another one.
Mokhiber: Okay. Second question -- can I take from what you said earlier that the reason Lawrence Lindsey was fired was because he made an estimate about the cost of war with Iraq?
Ari Fleischer: No, I was having fun with Dick. That's why I said that. And I wanted to get myself out of having to dodge the question again.
[Here's the back and forth with the other reporter, Dick:
Question: Ari, you said many times -- whether in reference to foreign protests, domestic protests, questions from the Hill, wherever, that the President welcomes an honest and open debate about how we move forward on Iraq. But given the concerns over the deficit, given the concerns over the economy, isn't it fair to include in that debate, even with all the caveats he wanted to attach to it, some preliminary figures on what this might cost -- best case scenario, worst case scenario -- so that people around the country and people on Capitol Hill can make up their minds about how we move forward?
Ari Fleischer: You're asking the same questions over and over again -- my answer is exactly the same. Nothing has changed.
Question: The reason we're asking over and over again is it doesn't seem unreasonable to get at least a cost range, with all the appropriate caveats. You know everybody in this room is careful about reporting those. What's the harm in putting that out? I mean, it's --
Ari Fleischer: For the exact reasons I gave earlier. As soon as something is knowable, we will have additional information to share on it. I'd think you would also not want the White House to engage in any speculation about numbers that could fluctuate or be dramatically different. So it's too soon to say.
Question: A recently departed Larry Lindsey put forward an estimate back in December based on a percentage of GDP which was in line with the spending --
Ari Fleischer: Are you asking me to follow the example and be recently departed? (Laughter).
Question: That's a decision you can make --
Ari Fleischer: Thank you.
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, two things.
A group of bishops and pastors from the National Council of Churches, the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, among others -- sent a letter to the President last week. They said they want a meeting face-to-face with him because they're "uneasy about the moral justification for war on Iraq." Will the President meet with these church leaders?
Ari Fleischer: As always, we'll fill you in on the President's schedule. But I want to emphasize again the President is a deeply religious man, and there are many people in a variety of religions who are going to have different thoughts about how to keep the peace and whether or not to go to war with Saddam Hussein. The President will respect their thoughts, and he will act as he sees fit as Commander-in-Chief to protect the country.
Mokhiber: One question on that.
You just said the President is a deeply religious man. Jesus Christ was an absolute pacifist. How does the President square his militarism with Jesus' pacifism?
[At this point, other reporters in the room challenge Russell's assertion that Jesus Christ was an absolute pacifist. One says "no he wasn't." Another says "How about the -- at the temple with a whip, where he beat the hell out of those money-changers? Does that sound like he's an absolute pacifist, Ari?"]
Ari Fleischer: I think there may be a debate in the press corps about your question, Russell.
[Press conference ends, with reporters shouting. Ari walks out without answering the question.]
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, two things. Yesterday in South Africa, former President Nelson Mandela said "All President Bush wants is Iraqi oil because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil and he wants to get a hold of it." He also said that America is "so arrogant" that they dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed innocent people. President Bush, on the other hand, yesterday said "either you are with us, or you are with the enemy." In saying this, does the President believe that Nelson Mandela, France and Germany are with the enemy?
Ari Fleischer: No, on the last point. And on the first point, if this was a war for oil, the United States would be the one saying -- lift the sanctions -- and that way Iraq could pump oil. This is about peace, this is about protecting the people in the region and the American people from Saddam Hussein and his weapons that kill millions.
Mokhiber: May I have a second one --
Fleischer: No you can't. Not today. We are running late.
Ari moves on.
Russell Mokhiber: The San Francisco Chronicle reported yesterday that a number of major American corporations -- including Hewlett-Packard and Bechtel -- helped Saddam Hussein beef up its military in the 1980s. And also the Washington Post last month in a front-page article by Michael Dobbs said the United States during the '80s supplied Iraq with cluster bombs, intelligence and chemical and biological agents. In that same article, they reported that Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense, went to Baghdad in December 1983 and met with Saddam Hussein, and this was at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis in defiance of international conventions. So there are some specifics, and the question is -- if Iraq is part of the axis of evil, why aren't the United States and these American corporations part of the axis of evil for helping him out during his time of need?
Ari Fleischer: Russell, as I indicated, I think that you have to make a distinction between chemical and biological. And, clearly, in a previous era, following the fall of the Shah of Iran, when there was a focus on the risks that were underway in the region as a result of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, different administrations, beginning with President Carter, reached different conclusions about the level of military cooperation vis-a-vis Iraq.
Obviously, Saddam Hussein since that time has used whatever material he had for the purpose therefore of attacking Kuwait, attacking Saudia Arabia, attacking Israel. And, obviously, as circumstances warrant, we have an approach that requires now the world to focus on the threat that Saddam Hussein presents and that he presents this threat because of his desire to continue to acquire weapons and his willingness to use those weapons against others.
Mokhiber: If I could follow up on that --
Ari Fleischer: Russell. Russell.
Mokhiber: If I could follow-up on it. You and the President have repeatedly said one of the reasons Saddam is part of the axis of evil is because he's gassed his own people. Well, he gassed his own people with our help. You saw the Washington Post article, didn't you, by Michael Dobbs?
Ari Fleischer: I think that statement is not borne out by the facts.
Mokhiber: Did you see the Post article by Dobbs?
Ari Fleischer: I think that he gassed his own people as a result of his decisions to use his weapons to gas his own people.
Mokhiber: But who gave him the weapons?
Ari Fleischer: And I think the suggestion that you blame America for Iraq's actions is way beyond the pale.
Mokhiber: Who gave him the weapons?
(Ari moves on.)