No accountability for Bush administration -- or media enablers

As we've written before, the nation's leading news organizations have all ignored a rather large elephant in the room when covering the Bush administration and the Iraq war. Namely: If President Bush and his aides misled the nation into war (and they did), and if the American people believe the administration did so (and they do) ... well, what does that mean? What are the consequences of those two things? Will the American people be less likely to trust the Bush administration if it again beats the drums for war?

Here's what we wrote on April 14:

[W]e've long argued that a major flaw in the media's coverage of the Bush administration has been a shortage of news stories exploring the consequences of the president's handling of the Iraq war:

And it is important to assess the consequences of the administration's lies about, and mishandling of, the Iraq war. Is the public less likely to believe the administration if it says we need to use force against Iran because of their false claims about Iraq? That's a question we've repeatedly asked; why don't reporters? Perhaps the third anniversary of the Iraq war would be a good time to finally include the question in a poll.

The Los Angeles Times took a step in the right direction with a poll released this week. The L.A. Times didn't directly measure whether Bush's false statements about Iraq hurt his credibility on Iran, but it did ask whether the Iraq war has made people more or less supportive of military action against Iran; “less supportive” won by a greater than two-to-one ratio. And the L.A. Times asked: “Generally speaking, do you trust George W. Bush to make the right decision about whether we should go to war with Iran, or not?” Only 42 percent of Americans, according to the poll, trust Bush to make the right decision; 54 percent do not. Among independents, the disparity was even greater -- 40 percent trust Bush, while 54 percent do not.

In short: the American people have lost confidence and trust in their commander in chief ... at a time when we're already fighting one war ... and considering the use of nuclear weapons in another.

Shouldn't this be the dominant news story of our time, rather than something that gets mentioned in bits and pieces -- and only in passing?

We admit it: We're a little obsessed about this topic. But only because the nation's most important reporters and editors don't seem to care. Even as they rush to declare a “crisis in the Middle East” that is being touted as “World War III” (or IV) and even as “Armageddon” or the “last days” or “the End Times,” the media don't seem to care whether the Bush administration's past false statements about war make Americans less likely to trust Bush this time around.

They don't even seem to care about the fact that Bush misled the nation in the first place. As Media Matters detailed this week, journalists have repeatedly excused their failure to cover new evidence that Bush knowingly misled the nation in making the case to go to war in Iraq by dismissing it as old news; as something that everybody knows. But a Harris poll released this week shows that the media's continued failure to thoroughly investigate the administration's prewar claims has had an effect: as Media Matters explained:

[A] Harris poll released July 21 found that the share of Americans who believe Saddam actually did possess WMDs at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has increased substantially since February 2005, from 36 percent to 50 percent. This finding suggests two things: The media are wrong in claiming that the public already has all the facts on the White House's misleading case for war; and the media's failure to probe the administration's case for war in an in-depth, systematic, and sustained way has actually resulted in a decline in the public's knowledge and understanding of the situation in Iraq and the administration's misrepresentations of that situation.

Perhaps news organizations shy away from holding Bush accountable for his false claims about Iraq because “accountability” isn't something they believe in. How else to explain the fact that media outlets continue to take seriously the same pundits who loudly and wrongly made highly optimistic predictions about the Iraq war? As Media Matters detailed this week:

Numerous conservative pundits offered highly optimistic predictions about the U.S. invasion of Iraq regarding the conflict's duration, difficulty, and human and financial costs -- nearly all of which have proven to be wrong. But rather than hold these “Pollyanna pundits” accountable for their past misjudgments, the media have again provided a platform for their views about the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. And echoing their rhetoric on Iraq, these conservative pundits have advocated further military action by the United States and its allies.

Media Matters went on to compare “the strategic advice recently put forth by seven such pundits on the Middle East crisis with the wildly inaccurate prognostications they earlier offered on Iraq.” Click here for more.

In 2003, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) analyzed two weeks of nightly news segments about Iraq on ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS. Looking at the two-week period surrounding then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations laying out the administration's case against Iraq, FAIR identified 267 on-camera guests from the United States who appeared on the networks to discuss the issue. Of those 267, only 17 -- a mere 6 percent -- “expressed skepticism or opposition to the war.”

Though many media figures have paid lip service over the past three years to the need to present more diverse viewpoints, things don't seem to have changed.

MSNBC guest Ann Coulter calls Al Gore a “fag”; gets return invitation

In 1997, as a paid MSNBC contributor, Ann Coulter was in the midst of an on-air debate with Vietnam Veterans of America founder Bobby Muller when she responded to a point Muller made by saying, “No wonder you guys lost.” MSNBC fired Coulter for her attack on Muller, who was paralyzed from the chest down when a bullet severed his spinal cord while he was leading an assault in Vietnam.

In 1999, Coulter suggested the assassination of then-President Bill Clinton.

In 2001, the conservative National Review fired Coulter for after she wrote a column that advocated responding to terrorists by “invad[ing] their countries, kill[ing] their leaders and convert[ing] them to Christianity.”

In 2002, Coulter said she wished Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh had blown up the New York Times building; a comment she defended in 2006.

In 2004, Coulter wrote that former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) was lucky to have lost three limbs in Vietnam.

In 2006, Coulter seemed to endorse the murder of U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha (D-PA).

Yet still Coulter remains a frequent guest on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. NBC's Today repeatedly gives her a platform to promote her hate. Time magazine says she writes "with particular sensitivity."

Last month, Media Matters asked: “What would Coulter have to say for the networks to stop promoting her?”

This week, MSNBC twice showed it still thinks Coulter's hate speech and attempts to incite violence are appropriate -- or that it doesn't care, as long as her commentary helps the channel make a quick buck.

On July 26, MSNBC touted a Coulter appearance on a CNBC program, where she said that former President Bill Clinton exhibits “some level of latent homosexuality.” MSNBC's response? They brought her back for a July 27 appearance on Hardball, where she called former Vice President Al Gore a “total fag.” Hardball host Chris Matthews must have enjoyed that clever barb; he ended the segment by calling Coulter “a smart lady” and declaring, “We'd love to have her back.”

So far, more than 15,000 people have joined our call for the media to stop promoting hateful conservatives like Ann Coulter. If you haven't yet done so, please sign our petition today. And urge your friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers to do the same.

New Media Matters email service: Get the content you want -- and only the content you want -- in your inbox

At Media Matters, we sometimes post as many as 20 items identifying and correcting conservative misinformation in a single day. We know not everybody has the time (or desire) to read all of them, so we've been hard at work developing new features to help you find the material you're interested in as quickly and easily as possible.

Our website features an “Issues/Topics” page that allows you to quickly find items based on Issues, Sub Issues, and Topics (such as National Security, War in Iraq, and Prewar Intelligence). Or you can browse by news organizations and journalists. And, of course, you can search the site by keywords.

Now we're bringing similar functionality to our email subscribers. We've added a new feature that allows you to tell us which items you want to receive via email. You can, for example, get all of our items that deal with immigration, or the Iraq war, or global warming. Or get our items about George W. Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton, or John Edwards. Or maybe you only want to receive items about a particular news outlet or personality, such as The New York Times, Ann Coulter, or Chris Matthews -- you can do that, too. You can set as many alerts as you like -- and specify how often you want to be notified of new items: immediately, daily, or weekly. And if you'd rather view the items in an RSS reader than via email, that's no problem, either.

Please click here to login (or create an account) and start setting up your alerts. If you already have an account but don't remember your login information, you can click here to have it sent to you.

And, as always, please let us know how we can improve our site.