Could Twitter Have Stopped the Media's Rush To War In Iraq Ten Years Ago? 456
Hugh Pickens writes "On the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Eric Boehlert writes that if Twitter had been around during the winter of 2002-2003, it could have provided a forum for critics to badger Beltway media insiders who abdicated their role as journalists and fell in line behind the Bush White House's march to war. 'Twitter could have helped puncture the Beltway media bubble by providing news consumers with direct access to confront journalists during the run-up to the war,' writes Boehlert. 'And the pass-around nature of Twitter could have rescued forgotten or buried news stories and commentaries that ran against the let's-go-to-war narrative that engulfed so much of the mainstream press.' For example, imagine how Twitter could have been used in real time on February 5, 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell made his infamous attack-Iraq presentation to the United Nations. At the time, Beltway pundits positively swooned over Powell's air-tight case for war. 'But Twitter could have swarmed journalists with instant analysis about the obvious shortcoming. That kind of accurate, instant analysis of Powell's presentation was posted on blogs but ignored by a mainstream media enthralled by the White House's march to war.' Ten years ago, Twitter could have also performed the task of making sure news stories that raised doubts about the war didn't fall through the cracks, as invariably happened back then. With swarms of users touting the reports, it would have been much more difficult for reporters and pundits to dismiss important events and findings. 'Ignoring Twitter, and specifically ignoring what people are saying about your work on Twitter, isn't really an option the way turning a blind eye to anti-war bloggers may have been ten years ago,' concludes Boehlert. 'In other words, Twitter could have been the megaphone — the media equalizer — that war critics lacked ten years ago."
Wow, you know what (Score:5, Interesting)
Twitter, what can't it do? Surely somewhere in Twitter there is a time traveler that can go back and let 2003-era America know that they are about to make a huge mistake!
I mean, twitter is fucking awesome, right? It freed all those people in Africa, what's to stop it from just making a picture fucking perfect world out of this whole god forsaken planet?
Tell us, Hugh Pickens, what is next for our social media superhero?
A Million Protesters in London - No Chance (Score:5, Interesting)
Over a million people took to the streets of London to protest against the Iraq War. It still went ahead. Britain still got involved.
I was one of the idiots that believed that there were WMD and that the politicians knew more than we did (national security and all that). But I was young and naive. I was also stupid enough to believe that we were going there as Liberators, not Occupiers, and then I was shocked to see the way we (the Coalition) treated the Iraqis.
I am also disgusted at the mess we've left the country in. There is rampant sectarian violence, suicide bombings and Islamofascism. It makes the Northern Ireland Troubles look like a village fete.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
To be honest, some of the blame has to rest on Saddam Hussein – he was playing a double game. He wanted his people and neighbors that he did have weapons of mass destruction while doing the minimum to comply with the UN resolutions. I still remember the UN inspector Hans Blix talking about the cat and mouse game he was playing with Saddam – and that it would only take another 7 years to confirm that Iraq did not have any WMD.
As to the Twitter question – I find new media does a good job on the high level headlines stuff but less well with in-depth stuff. Considering that Hussein had deliberately engaged in disinformation for years, how is Twitter going to get around that? Maybe if a high level government official defected – but heck – even that could be part of a misinformation campaign.
Re:Hindsight is 20-20... (Score:5, Interesting)
Horseshit, we KNEW he didn't have WMD because all of these issues were known at the time. It wasn't a revelation that Saddam's foreign policy involved faking having WMDs to scare off Iran. We had inspectors on the ground and everywhere they looked they found jack squat. About the only things we couldn't account for were chemical and biological weapons that had expired YEARS before the invasion.
We also had publicly available empirical evidence that what was being fed to the public was fake information. The notion that there was any *real* doubt is HORSESHIT. Oh, there was plenty of artificially-produced doubt. The only people who didn't know this was a bullshit invasion were those who didn't follow foreign affairs closely.
Joe Wilson, Italian intelligence, yellow cake, the Downing Street Memos, aluminum tubes, Hans Blick [sic], Judith Miller, etc. The history rewrite has always been the attempt to pretend that there was ambiguity.
No shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I spent extraordinary amount of time on various sites..... not just /., /. is not a forum that can pin a discussion and keep at it for months. There were plenty of those at the time, I was absolutely overwhelmed by people who were pro-war, pro-invasion, pro-military action, completely out of their mind yelling that Saddam was the devil himself and he caused 9/11 and probably fucked their grandmother (and her cat) while gradpa wasn't watching.
Actually I think some were so weird, they nearly referred to the Southpark (the movie, uncut etc.), because it had Saddam and the Devil in it at the same time, that was pretty freaking weird.
Basically there was story after story after story and after story completely swamping, overwhelming every freaking site and forum about how absolutely necessary it is to attack Iraq.
I couldn't believe what was happening, it was like a fucking nightmare. The sort that reminds you of the original Elm street movie, where you are walking the stairs and are just getting sucked into the carpet, can't move, the house is collapsing around you. That's what was happening.
You absolutely could add Twitter and every bit of technology you wanted to this mix and it would only AMPLIFY the crazy.
And the crazy were talking about how Saddam attacked USA on 9/11! I mean they could add how Saddam attacked USA on 9/12 and burned the white house in 1812. It was un-fucking-believable. They were absolutely sure that Saddam had every weapon in his disposal, it doesn't matter if I was pointing out before the invasion that if Saddam HAD anything, USA would have NOT attacked him!
Already in the first days of the invasion I was writing that if I were him, I would have used every single bit of every type of WMD against every American (and some of his internal enemies) immediately, in the first minutes or hours of that attack.
No, the crazy became only more and more vocal and actually cheering and jubilant as the war progressed.
I think that the live TV coverage that everybody was involved in actually helped USA pro-invasion propaganda. Also I remember how surreal it was to watch a real war on TV, not in real life. In real life it's different, you are there and you only see a little bit of what surrounds YOU. But when you see it on TV from many crews and many angles, it's so strange, like a surreal movie, that's not really happening. Similar to the weird feeling I remember having when watching the actual attack on 9/11 in real time (I was in a TV channel station, it was on the same floor as my contract at the time and they were getting a live feed) and the twin towers collapsing. It was a weird moment to watch, unbelievable almost, the entire war was like that, only stretched into weeks of that live coverage.
You could turn on the TV and watch live war at any moment in time. No Twitter, no anything could stop that.
The people's common sense was completely turned off. Anybody suggesting that the war was the wrong thing to do was almost attacked (or attacked for real). The answer to the question mark in the story headline is no.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
How did Bush, Cheney and the like profit?
For better or worse, Bush and Cheney thought it was the right thing to do. It wasn't like they got rich doing so.
People like to conveniently forget, but right after 9/11 (two days later if I recall) the UN Security Council unanimously passed another measure threatening Iraq for lack of compliance, but Bush publicly spoke about not rushing to blame Iraq, and letting facts come out over time. If Bush wanted to capitalize on popularity, he could have gone into Iraq immediately after 9/11, though he would have been wrong to do so.
The argument for going into Iraq 3 years later came down to 3 points (which Bush laid out in his national address 2 weeks before going into Iraq).
1. 30 million people living in Iraq were in danger. Saddam had begun cutting off shipments of food to cities, shutting off water, etc. He had bombed Kurds and chased them out of their homes, forcing them to hide in caves.
2. The cease fire from 1991 was based on Iraq's compliance. The UN Security council then passed 75 resolutions over the next 10 years citing that Iraq was refusing to comply and waving their fist. Bush contended that Iraq had refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire, so the initial authorization for military conflict in 1991 stood. Some say this is cheap logic, but at the same time, if you never once follow through on an ultimatum, then the UN Security Council becomes a paper tiger (if they aren't already).
3. He said the CIA had presented evidence that Iraq had been pursuing WMD. This is the biggest point of contention. I know Powell despises war, but argued for war because he believed the intel as well. In retrospect, I guess some of the intel was flawed. And the term WMD is so vague, that the American public perceived this as ICBMs where Iraq could nuke the US, which is absurd. Bush also screwed up big time by asking the UN permission to invade in advance (tipping off Iraq) and then announcing on national TV he was going to invade two weeks later. Then famously, we saw a huge caravan leave Iraq and head into Syria. Powell then noted we'd likely never find the smoking gun on WMD evidence as we gave them warning to move it out of country.
We did find training manuals, storage facilities, missiles with sarin gas, etc. but not a huge smoking gun of lots of really dangerous WMD. Maybe they had more, and maybe they didn't. I guess we'll never know.
But even in the Twitter age, the first two points would stand, even if journalists questioned the intel on point 3 sooner.
The common talking point that Bush lied to create war for his profit is a really absurd lie that needs to go away. Bush was an idiot and he also acted on bad intel. But it wasn't like he lined his pockets with oil money and fabricated the situation.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
When inspectors would show up unannounced, Iraq wouldn't let them inspect. They were allowed to inspect certain areas on certain days if Iraq approved it ahead of time. The inspection process was a joke, but Hans Blix defended it because he didn't want to see war again.
The irony is that if Hans was harsher and enforced real surprise inspections, perhaps we would have had real answers on WMD sooner and prevented war. By not really running proper inspections, Blix may have enabled the war to happen.
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember watching despots such as Mao and Pol Pot on the evening news. I don't believe the end justified the means but the Bush apologists do have a salient point, the world really is a better place without Saddam in it.
Yeah, no. (Score:5, Interesting)
Neither could Iraq. The only difference was that there was a country so big and powerful that it made no difference. We imposed our will on them in the oldest, most vile manner possible: By murderous force, without any right, on a sovereign country.
By every measure, the 2nd Iraq war was unjustified, the consequences horrific, the perpetrators criminal, and by that, I don't mean the pawns, the soldiers, but those who steered this ship of terror, Bush and Cheney and every minion they had that participated in the faking of intelligence and the misdirecting of the public as to any involvement whatsoever with 9/11.
But overlaying all of this is the simple truth that collectively: we cannot trust our government, we cannot control our government, and we do not care enough to do anything about it.
This has been true for some time, from things we allow it to do to us, from the war on drugs to the fear-mongering used to crush our liberties subsequent to 9/11, to the completely unjustified actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 9/11 perpetrators were mostly Saudi with 2...3 from Egypt, Lebanon and the UAE. No one from Afghanistan, no one from Iraq. The justification that they went to school in Iraq kind of skips over the idea that more of them went to school in the UK and Saudi Arabia. The idea that OBL was hiding there so we had to destroy an entire country to get at him was both wrong, and not really justified by the fact that he was pleased, but surprised, to hear that we had been attacked. The fact that we shot him when we had overwhelming force on our side and didn't bring him to any witness stand is, at least, suspicious.
Do I claim to know what happened? No. But I will say this: if you step back from the official story, the first thing you note is that this puzzle fits together really, really badly if you use the lines drawn by the US government. It's likely, IMHO, to be close to the real truth -- the best and most enduring lies usually are -- but it clearly isn't the truth. We know of many problems: There were no aluminum rods being used for centrifuges. There were no WMDs. Neither country -- Iraq or Afghanistan -- had much, if anything, to do with our being attacked. Saddam had, in fact, given us access to every site of any consequence. Almost everything Bush and Cheney said was distorted or outright false. Both undertakings failed to even vaguely resemble the minimalist interventions we were sold.
The lesson is that the government has control of the picture they present, and that we will, no matter if the consequence is our liberties at home or the lives of others across the sea, accept that picture and back them in almost any action.
I prefer the explanation that begins with what the Gaussian lays at my feet: More than half the people are really, really stupid. All of the people are subject to heavy attempts at deception to get them to comply. Even very smart people will fall prey to this until they obtain data that comes from sources that are not mangling it to fit a false picture.
I don't think we can fix this. Under the present model, our congress and judiciary are wholly bought and paid for, entrenched in a way that the public really doesn't understand through political leadership that transcends elections and lobbyists that exert the will of a privileged few who are subject to zero oversight by the public.
As to Twitter, Twitter is a form of the voice of the public, but it's really no different in its reach than the voices of big forums (and search engines) ten years ago, and there were plenty of those, including this one. Twitter is different in that 140 characters isn't enough to make a case for anything; I refer you to this very post: You may completely disagree with me, and if you do, likely you'll couch that disagreement in the form of a claim that I haven't made my case, even though I took the time to cite quite a few facts which you can easily confirm supporting it. Imagine if I had tried to use twitter to make the same case -- would