Fleischer Defends the Media

"Based on the CIA's conclusions, many of the president's and my answers turned out to be wrong, but you can't blame the press for either the CIA's reporting or decisions reached by the president."

But did that skepticism make its way into the coverage? Not so much. (Most of the press coverage from that day -- which also featured a short speech by Bush -- is only available on Nexis.)

David Gregory explained on the NBC Nightly News that White House officials "want to see a full and complete accounting from the Iraqi leader about his weapons stockpile. The president's been very pointed in his warning to Saddam Hussein that this is his last chance or he faces his own destruction, his regime's destruction. What officials are actually afraid of is that Saddam will provide a detailed report, but it will be incomplete, that he may actually make a public show of destroying some of his weapons but he'll keep some of it outside of public view, hiding the true nature of what they believe is a weapons of mass destruction program. That, of course, might have the effect of dividing world opinion and perhaps delaying war.

"US officials maintain that any omissions in this declaration can be proved to be untrue, can be proved to be a lie, and that would be a violation of this resolution."

In a front-page Washington Post piece, Dana Milbank reported: "In his daily briefing, Fleischer indicated Hussein was in a no-win position no matter what he declares by Sunday. 'If Saddam Hussein indicates that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is violating United Nations resolutions, then we will know that Saddam Hussein again deceived the world,' he said. Alternatively, Fleischer noted, 'If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.' . . .

"If Iraq asserts that it has no weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration is prepared to share intelligence with the United Nations indicating otherwise to aid inspectors in their search."

David E. Sanger and Richard W. Stevenson wrote in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush said he viewed war as the last option.

"'Yet the temporary peace of denial and looking away from danger would only be a prelude to broader war and greater horror,' he said. 'America will confront gathering dangers early, before our options become limited and desperate.'"

Campbell Brown reported on MSNBC: "The key point the president making today was that it should not be up to the inspectors to try to figure out what Iraq has, rather that the burden is on Saddam Hussein to candidly and completely reveal any and all weapons programs."

Dan Rather's View

In a speech to the National Conference for Media Reform in Minneapolis on Saturday, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather delivered what turned out to be a pre-buttal of Fleischer's argument. Isolated displays of journalistic skepticism didn't have a chance in the overall media climate, he argued.

"In the wake of 9/11 and in the run-up to Iraq, . . . news organizations made a decision -- consciously or unconsciously, but unquestionably in a climate of fear -- to accept the overall narrative frame given them by the White House, a narrative that went like this: Saddam Hussein, brutal dictator, harbored weapons of mass destruction and, because of his supposed links to al Qaeda, this could not be tolerated in a post-9/11 world.

"In the news and on the news, one could, to be sure, find persons and views that did not agree with all or parts of this official narrative. Hans Blix, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, comes to mind as an example. But the burden of proof, implicitly or explicitly, was put on these dissenting views and persons . . . the burden of proof was not put on an administration that was demonstrably moving towards a large-scale military action that would represent a break with American precedent and stated policy of how, when, and under what circumstances this nation goes to war.