In light of President George W. Bush’s visit to Grand Rapids on Friday, it is important to remember that this is not the first time that he has visited Grand Rapids to deliver a major speech on Iraq. In January of 2003, President Bush visited Grand Rapids the day after his State of the Union address and made a number claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that there were connections between al-Qaida and Iraq. The connection between this speech and his 2003 speech have not been lost on the local news media, who has used scenes and quotes from Bush’s speech in 2003 in their coverage of Friday’s speech. However, as was the case at the time, the local media has failed to critically report the claims made by Bush in 2003.
A story appearing in the Grand Rapids Press on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 titled “Bush to speak on Iraq at EGR High School Friday,” reports that:
It marks the second time Bush has turned to West Michigan to deliver an important political message.
In January 2003, he spoke at Grand Rapids’ DeVos Performance Hall as he laid out the case for war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein less than two months before the invasion.
“Because of his al-Qaida connections, he is a danger to the American people, and we’ve got to deal with him before it’s too late,” Bush said to one of several standing ovations he received from that crowd.
However, reporter Ted Roelofs never tells readers that the claim was false, just as the Press never examined Bush’s claims in 2003.
When President Bush spoke in Grand Rapids on January 23, 2003 (transcript), his appearence was billed as an address on Medicare, but coming a day after his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush focused much of his talk on Iraq. Of course, President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address famously contained an assertion that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” a claim that was later revealed to be based on forged documents. Widely referenced as Bush’s “16 words” and now known as a lie, the argument that Iraq was purchasing uranium strengthened the administration’s case for war in 2003. Shortly afterwards, the State Department asserted that the charges were false.
However, it was not just the sixteen words in the State of the Union that were suspect, but rather the majority of the Bush administration’s case for war was based on outright lies, distorted intelligence, or flawed assumptions. In 2004, a study by Representative Henry Waxman documented 237 “misleading” statements made by the Bush administration to advance the case for war. During the lead up to the war in 2002 and 2003, numerous critics raised concerns about the accuracy of the Bush administration’s claims, but the media failed to challenge the administration.
Bush’s 2003 address in Grand Rapids fit into an overall pattern of lies and distortions about the Iraq War. In that address, Bush set the context for his comments on Iraq by stressing the importance of “protecting the American people from harm” and talked about “cold-blooded killers” that “just don’t value life like we do.” Bush then focused on Saddam Hussein, who he linked to “the war on terror” by stating “the war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein and his willingness to terrorize himself.” Bush asserted that:
Saddam Hussein has terrorized his own people. He’s terrorized his own neighborhood. He is a danger not only to countries in the region, but as I explained last night, because of al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he’s a danger to the American people. And we’ve got to deal with him. We’ve got to deal with him before it is too late.
Of course, President Bush did not provide evidence of the Iraq-al-Qaeda link nor did he mention the fact that Hussein was supported by the United States. Bush went on to say that:
There’s a reason why the world asked Saddam Hussein to disarm — for 12 years. (Laughter.) And the reason why is because he’s dangerous. He’s used them. He tortures his own people. He’s gassed his own people. He’s attacked people in the neighborhood.
Again, Bush never mentioned the United States’ support for many of these crimes. He then went on to talk about weapons inspectors from the United Nations stating:
The role of the inspectors are not to play “gotcha.” He’s better at playing “gotcha,” obviously — for 12 years he’s played “gotcha.” The role of the inspectors are to watch Iraq disarm. That’s the role of the inspectors. They’re to report back and say, gosh, he’s started getting rid of all his mustard gas or sarin gas. He started getting rid of these weapons of mass destruction. He’s now getting rid of the biological laboratories. That’s the role of the inspectors.
However, the former chief weapons inspector Hans Blix questioned many of these assertions and complained about the quality of intelligence given to the United Nations, while the United States actively withheld intelligence from the United Nations.
President Bush asserted that “it’s clear he’s [Saddam Hussein] not disarming” despite offering no proof that the weapons exist. Bush concluded by stating that if the United States military goes into Iraq:
We will free people. This great, powerful nation is motivated not by power for power’s sake, but because of our values. If everybody matters, if every life counts, then we should hope everybody has the great God’s gift of freedom. We go into Iraq to disarm the country. We will also go in to make sure that those who are hungry are fed, those who need health care will have health care, those youngsters who need education will get education. But most of all, we will uphold our values. And the biggest value we hold dear is the value of freedom. (Applause.) As I said last night, freedom and liberty, they are not America’s gifts to the world. They are God’s gift to humanity. We hold that thought dear to our hearts.
Of course, none of this happened, instead the war has been devastating to Iraq and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths.
The local media failed to challenge President Bush on the claims that he made in Grand Rapids. In the days before the speech, the Grand Rapids Press relied on Associated Press stories that also failed to challenge the president, with the exception of a January 29, 2003 story titled “Checking the facts – President’s address skips some of the complexities” which pointed out the lack of evidence given by Bush. An article by Steve Harmon published the day before Bush’s speech, “Local residents impressed by Bush’s leadership – They say the president made a strong case for war with Iraq,” featured comments of those supportive of military action against Iraq and did not contain any perspective critical of the war.
On the after President Bush’s appearance, January 30, 2003 a story titled “Peace and unrest – Protesters, police debate facts after 10 are arrested” focused primarily on the arrests that were made, before moving on to feature some quotes from random protestors at the event and 5 paragraphs focusing on counter-protestors. An article about those attending the speech, “Supporters were ready to roar — and they did – Bush’s messages on Iraq, taxes and anything else are loudly embraced by the West Michigan crowd” featured quotes from people supportive of the possibility of war in Iraq and quoted President Bush as saying “because of his al-Qaida connections, he is a danger to the American people and we’ve got to deal with him before it’s too late” without examining the accuracy of the claim. That day the Press ran a story from the Los Angeles Time titled “Iraq-al-Qaida link rests with operative” that expressed that the link between the two entities is based on circumstantial evidence and quoted one Congressional official expressing caution about relying too much on existing intelligence on the matter to justify a war, but this story was not referenced when they quoted President Bush making a link between Iraq and al-Qaida.
Other stories (“Traffic stops for five hours during visit,” “Seen and Heard,” and “Bush visit to Spectrum leaves an impression – Hospital staffers work with the White House, paying close attention to detail and dealing with disruption”) focused on trivial matters, such as businesses dealing with street closures, the weather, and someone making cookies for the Secret Service.
Aside from its reporting on Bush’s visit, The Press also ran an editorial titled “Bush: A start toward Iraq – State of Union speech lays a foundation for war justification” that essentially agreed with the claims of the Bush administration. While the editorial raised questions about the specifics of some of Bush’s claims in his State of Union–many of which were echoed in his appearance in Grand Rapids–it agreed with the overall Bush administration policy. The editorial argued that Bush will continue to make his case since the “high threshold” for a unilateral strike has not been met yet, but supported the idea that the Bush administration could make such a strike.
For an examination of the local broadcast media’s coverage of protest surrounding Bush’s January 2003 speech, see “Over 1,000 Demonstrate against War in Grand Rapids, 10 Arrests are the Story.”
Related posts:
- Commentary: The Lies Continue – US Media and the War in Iraq…and Iran?
- The Best War Ever: Lies, Damned Lies, and the Mess in Iraq
- Bush Speech in East Grand Rapids Praises his Policy, Offers Little Supporting Evidence
- Media Alert: WXMI Failed to Investigate Ehlers’ Comments
- Local News Coverage of Bush Iraq Policy Speech and Protest
