As E&P's Greg Mitchell Aptly Points Out, Few Raised Alarms on Key War Resolution

As regulars know, I'm a fan both of Editor and Publisher since my journalism school days and of Greg Mitchell there in particular, so I always read his columns.

This week, Greg looks at how few newspapers raised alarms at the time in 2002 that Bush was handed a blank check by Congress to wage war anyway, anywhere, and for any reason he chose. I encourage you to read it in its entirely, with a snippet here:

When Congress in October 2002 voted to give President Bush a free hand to wage war against Iraq, not many in the press saw it as a landmark, perhaps even a turning point, in U.S. history. But ever since the war went bad -- almost three years ago now -- the vote has gained increased significance, something to hail or lament (as a modern Gulf of Tonkin resolution) or an albatross to hang around a political candidate's neck. John Kerry never could explain his vote in favor of the resolution during the 2004 presidential race. Now he says he regrets his vote, but Hillary Clinton, who is in the same bind, refuses to renounce it.

Those who favor the war, from President Bush on down, frequently invoke the bipartisan vote in both the House and Senate as proof that Democrats, too, believed that Saddam had WMDs and felt he should be removed from power. But how did newspapers feel about the vote then? And will any of them promise that next time -- let's say, if a showdown with Iran or North Korea looms -- they will be more vigilant about backing a blank check for a war-threatening president?

An E&P survey of editorials in more than a dozen major papers around that October 2002 vote finds that few sounded any alarms. The Washington Post was typical in backing Congress' decision to give Bush "broad authority ... to move against Iraq." The editorial suggested that it was not a "declaration of war" and "the course of U.S. policy is not yet set." Of course, Bush would later act as if it were equivalent to a declaration of war, and there is much evidence that U.S. plans for an invasion were indeed pretty well "set" at that time.

This is especially important, I think, in light of the WSJ and Washington savaging The Times for its story on the SWIFT bank spying operation when the LA Times and the WSJ had also written about it, and when the program was HARDLY a secret.

Do we need a press that acts as a PR organ for the White House? I say loudly and often, NO!

Thanks, Greg, once again, for exploring some of the tougher issues and being willing to hold fellow journalists and publishers feet to the fire at this very critical time in American and world history.