George W Bush Administration Propaganda for an Invasion of Iraq

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Hartenian
Author(s):  
Matt Carlson

This chapter looks at how two newspapers used unnamed sources in reports leading up to the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. When Iraq's weapons of mass destruction failed to materialize, critics on the left and from within journalism chastised the New York Times and Washington Post for overly credulous, unnamed source-laden investigative reporting appearing on their front pages in the buildup to the war. The newspapers responded by revisiting their unnamed sourcing practices, but not until more than a year after the invasion. These self-assessments generated attention around two problems negatively impacting prewar coverage: the calculated press management strategies of the Bush administration, and the willingness of the competing newspapers to reproduce official statements anonymously. The complex problems marking the journalist-unnamed source exchange come to light through these efforts to attach blame both to the sources and the journalists.


Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Valerie Patterson

In this article, Valerie Patterson employs what she refers to as “lyrical visioning” – a useful tool for garnering support for claims that may or may not be true – to review several successful strategies used by the Bush administration to secure support for the invasion of Iraq. By assessing the utility of “the hook” that in Hip Hop music and Opera is used to “grab” people and make them like or remember the melody, and in President Bush’s political rhetoric was used to reconstruct and repackage tactics that can be perceived as deceptive by some, the author argues that the repetitive utterance of certain words and concepts could explain the acceptance by many Americans that the WMD claim was a truthful assertion and thus validated and legitimized the decision to engage in a preemptive strike against the people of Iraq.


Author(s):  
Elaff Ganim Salih ◽  
Hardev Kaur ◽  
Mohamad Fleih Hassan

The war launched by America and its allies against the country of Iraq on 2003 was a debatable and notorious war for the public opinion was shocked with the realization that the reasons for launching the war under the title ‘Iraq’s Mass Destruction Weapons’ were false. The tragic consequences of this war led many writers around the world to question the policy of the United States and its manipulation of facts to justify their narratives. The present study examines the American policy of invading Iraq in David Hare’s Stuff Happens. It investigates Hare’s technique of combining documentary realism with imaginative reconstruction of the arguments to dramatize the American Invasion of Iraq. Stuff Happens is a historical and political play written as a verbatim theatre. It depicts the backroom deals and political maneuvers of the Bush administration in justifying their campaign against the ‘Axis of Evil’ culminated by the war against Iraq. The verbatim theatre is the best way of showing the gap between ‘what is said and what is seen to be done’. Scenes of direct speeches by real characters are part of this theatre dramatized to present a new reading of a historical event. In addition, characterization is used by Hare’s to chronicle the American war on Iraq. The study follows a postcolonial framework. The study concludes that Hare’s Stuff Happens succeeded in shaking the public opinion with the truth that Bush’s administration has manipulated facts in order to achieve their colonial and imperial interests in Iraq, which led to more destruction and violence in this country.


Author(s):  
Adeed Dawisha

This chapter discusses political developments in Iraq following the US and UK's military campaign in 2003. The publicly stated reason for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his links with international Islamist terrorists. However, is probably more likely that from the very beginning the Bush Administration, or more precisely influential elements within it, made the removal of Saddam Husayn a central plank of the administration's policy. Whatever the reasons for the invasion, the United States found itself on April 9, 2003 the hegemonic power in Iraq, faced with the responsibilities of governance. And indeed until June 28, 2004, when sovereignty was transferred to the Iraqis, the United States (with some input by the British) ruled Iraq directly through a mostly American administration in Baghdad called the Coalition Provisional Authority.


2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (143) ◽  
pp. 177-183
Author(s):  
Naomi Klein

Fitting to its doctrine of preventiv war, the Bush Administration founded a bureau of reconstruction, designing reconstruction plans for countries which are still not destroyed. Reconstruction after war or after a “natural disaster” developed to a profitable branch of capitalist investment. Also the possibilities to change basic political and economic structures are high and they are widely used by the US-government and institutions like the International Monetary Fund.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 206-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Harper

Peter Bowker and Laurie Borg's three-part television drama Occupation (2009) chronicles the experiences of three British soldiers involved in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. By means of an historically situated textual analysis, this article assesses how far the drama succeeds in presenting a progressive critique of the British military involvement in Iraq. It is argued that although Occupation devotes some narrative space to subaltern perspectives on Britain's military involvement in Iraq, the production – in contrast to some other British television dramas about the Iraq war – tends to privilege pro-war perspectives, elide Iraqi experiences of suffering, and, through the discursive strategy of ‘de-agentification’, obfuscate the extent of Western responsibility for the damage the war inflicted on Iraq and its population. Appearing six years after the beginning of a war whose prosecution provoked widespread public dissent, Occupation's political silences perhaps illustrate the BBC's difficulty in creating contestatory drama in what some have argued to be the conservative moment of post-Hutton public service broadcasting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document