August is notoriously the traditional if unofficial month away for movers and shakers in Washington, D.C., including most prominent individuals in the news media. In August 2002 the campaign to get war with Iraq rolling continues, with the noise machine ramping up in support of the White House both inside and outside major news outlets.
August 15-31, 2002:

 

 
Aug. 15, 2002 – The personnel who gave the much questioned August 8 briefing in Doug Feith’s office again give the same briefing, about a supposed relationship between the Iraq regime and al-Qaeda, to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

 

Aug. 15, 2002 -- Another George Will column appears, “A Mideast Specter,” supporting regime change in Iraq and the doctrine of pre-emptive strike.

 

Same day – Rush Limbaugh again boosts war with Iraq, arguing that Congress has already approved it.

 
 

Aug. 18, 2002 – Richard Perle, neocon advisor to the Pentagon and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, is interviewed on ABC’s Sunday morning talk show This Week:

 
“RICHARD PERLE
Well, Cokie, I don't know the truth of those allegations. And I would certainly, listening to Colin Powell, accept that he's in a position to know. But in any case, the reason for going after Saddam Hussein or, to put it, I think, more accurately, assisting Iraqis who want to liberate their country, is that he does possess chemical weapons, he's used them on civilians. He possesses biological weapons. And most important, he is working feverishly to acquire nuclear weapons. And once he does, the range of options available to us will be radically different.

 

COKIE ROBERTS
(Off Camera) Uh, Mr. Kemp, there are reports that the, uh, Pentagon is already massing troops, planning this invasion. The President's National Security Adviser said this week that we don't have the luxury of doing nothing about Saddam Hussein. Do you fear that this is already a fait accompli, that there's no argument, it's done? (Off Camera) Mr. Kemp? Is he not hearing us? Mr. Perle, is it a fait accompli?

 

RICHARD PERLE
No, I, military action is never a fait accompli until the first shots are fired. Uh, I think we just have to wait and see, the President has said that he's approved no specific plan. I'm sure that's right. It is really important to recognize that millions of Iraqis have suffered for years under Hussein, they are eager to liberate their country. And we are not talking about a massive invasion along the lines of 1991, we're talking about a much more modest effort in which the United States would assist Iraqis in freeing their country from this scourge that they've had to live with.”

 

One of the continuing questions about the lead-up to the Iraq war is how uncredentialed commentators like Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, and William Kristol, with no military or combat experience or security field expertise, could become so accepted as prominent authorities by the television networks. It should be noted here that Perle sketches an idea of invasion radically different from what actually develops, in which the Iraqi people do most or almost all of the heavy lifting, with a “much more modest effort” from the U.S.

 

Aug. 18, 2002 – Charles Krauthammer’s column, “Kidnapped by the Times,” criticizes the editor of the New York Times for holding back on supporting war with Iraq:

 
“Not since William Randolph Hearst famously cabled his correspondent in Cuba, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war," has a newspaper so blatantly devoted its front pages to editorializing about a coming American war as has Howell Raines's New York Times. Hearst was for the Spanish-American War. Raines (for those who have been incommunicado for the last year) opposes war with Iraq.” (Washington Post B7)

 

This opening paragraph is a breathtaking example of projection. U.S. media manipulation in 2001 and 2002 in regard to war with Iraq was Hearst’s famous “yellow journalism” writ large.

 

Aug. 20, 2002 – The Central Intelligence Agency drafts a report on “Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” concluding, “to date we cannot document any joint operational activity between them [Saddam and al Qaeda].”

 

Aug. 20, 2002 -- Rush Limbaugh weighs in on Iraq again, stating defiantly that “We want to destabilize the Middle East.”

 

Aug. 22, 2002 – George Will’s column, “Skeptics and Sketchy War Plans,” criticizes the optimistic assertions broadcast nationally by Richard Perle, above, but still supports preemption and Iraq ‘regime change.’

 

The Orwellian term ‘regime change’ is another example of the way the administration re-brands invasion and conquest of a sovereign nation that has not attacked the U.S.

 
 

Aug. 26, 2002 – Cheney gives a speech in Nashville, Tennessee, to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, again touting the threat purportedly represented by Saddam:

 
“As President Bush has said, time is not on our side. Deliverable weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terror network, or a murderous dictator, or the two working together, constitutes as grave a threat as can be imagined. The risk (sic) of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.  

          Now and in the future, the United States will work closely with a global coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. And the entire world must know that we will take whatever action is necessary to defend our freedom and our security.        

          As former Secretary of State Kissinger recently stated, the imminence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the huge dangers it involves, the rejection of a viable inspection system and the demonstrated hostility of Saddam Hussein combine to produce an imperative for preemptive action.”

 

Aug. 27, 2002 – Opposing voices are occasionally heard. Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S., goes to Bush’s Texas ranch to object to a U.S. war on Iraq. NBC reports:

 
“Mr. ABDEL AL-JUBEIR (Saudi Foreign Policy Advisor): No country in the world supports going to war with Iraq at this time.

 
GREGORY: Sources familiar with Saudi concerns say the kingdom wants to see more progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before Saddam is confronted. And war with Iraq, they say, should be the last result after the US tries to force weapons inspectors back into the country under UN auspices. Above all, sources say, the kingdom, fearing the effect a power vacuum in Iraq would have on them and others in the region, questions whether the US has the stomach for American casualties and the commitment to rebuild Iraq when Saddam is gone.

 
Mr. AL-JUBEIR: Is America ready for a--a long-term occupation of Iraq? What happens if the country implodes or explodes?”

 

Aug. 29, 2002 – George Will brings out another column supporting preemption and regime change, “Improvised War Ethic,” arguing against waiting for any provocation from Saddam Hussein and criticizing former Secretary of State James A. Baker for recommending holding off.

 

Aug. 31, 2002 – At least in some segments of the news media it is clear that the White House is trying to achieve war with Iraq:

 
“FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: On the subject of Iraq, more voices are weighing in about how to deal with Saddam Hussein. From a former president, words of caution. From Britain's prime minister, concern. And from a congressional leader, doubt. CNN White House correspondent Kelly Wallace joins us from Crawford, Texas, where the president is enjoying the last day of his so-called working vacation -- Kelly.

 
KELLY WALLACE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Fredricka. The president and his aides certainly listening to those voices, growing criticism around the world and in the United States. And that is why the administration is stepping up its efforts to make the case for possible military action. But convincing the American people and skeptical U.S. allies will not be easy.”

 
That the very existence of skepticism is mentioned is a tribute to Wallace and Whitfield. Shows what can happen when more ponderous media figures, who have been in the system longer, go out of town. Wallace, a former international correspondent for CNN in the Middle East, is now at CBS.