The Moyers Show

Many of our commenters have been asking (okay, demanding) that we respond to it. And I’ve been agonizing over the cost/benefit of doing that, considering how it is certain to generate a blogswarm. There’s a lot of anger out there at the media in general, and because we have opened up this blog to comments, we feel the brunt of it, aimed at us personally. But you asked, and being a blogger is all about interacting with your audience, so here’s what I think:

I watched the Moyers show (with a few interruptions, because the Swampkids had homework). And like most of you, I was horrified by the body of evidence that he presented–although, let’s face it, this wasn’t news to any of us. I think Jim Poniewozik had a terrific analysis of both the strengths and weaknesses of the presentation.

The media did a really bad job of covering the run-up to the war. Stipulated. But I’m not Judith Miller or Bill Kristol or any of the other people Moyers took to task; they can speak for themselves. I’m just a political reporter here at TIME, not a columnist or a foreign policy expert or a media critic. And all I can account for is what I wrote and said. So last night,with some trepidation, I went back and looked at the cover story that I wrote on the eve of the congressional vote in September 2002. And you know what? It was a pretty good story, rooted in a lot of skeptical reporting by my colleagues. Please read the whole thing. We at TIME didn’t have the answers, but at least we were asking the right questions:

Moral principles gain their power by being consistently applied. If it is dangerous for ruthless dictators to develop lethal arsenals, why attack Iraq but not North Korea? If the Iraqi people deserve to live in a free and democratic state, why don’t the Saudi people? If we are willing to pay the price of toppling Saddam, will we also pay the price of staying to clean up the neighborhood? And the thorniest question of all: If the last Gulf War helped inspire evil in bin Laden, will a new one create many more like him?

Okay, your turn…

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’

    Candidates often say things when polling in the single digits that come back to haunt them when they start leading the polls. Last October, Rick Santorum gave an interview with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President. In particular, he said he would “get rid of any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage” as a government policy. Start watching the following video at 17:55.

    Romney: I Was A 'Severely Conservative' GovernorHuffPost Politics

    Occupy the Regulatory Open Comment Period!

    There’s nothing “wrong” with protests built around placard-hoisting and park-squatting, but Occupy the SEC is definitely doing something right with its radically different tack. The OWS-offshoot has submitted a 325-page letter to federal financial regulatory agencies on the Volcker Rule, a controversial measure designed to prohibit banks from proprietary trading, or making investments with their own dollars rather than their customers’, that was passed as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

blog comments powered by Disqus