The Post's Iraq War Pre-and Peri-War Coverage

I was about to drop a note here on this, considering The Post (following the New York Times doing something quite similar in May) is now saying they were not critical enough of the "Bush facts" in the lead-up to the war with Iraq.

However, I found that Kash at Angry Bear had a post up already, and our thoughts are (mostly) alike:

Today's Washington Post has a lengthy article examining their coverage of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraq during the period leading up to the war. They contritely conclude this:

In retrospect, said Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr., "we were so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part."

Across the country, "the voices raising questions about the war were lonely ones," Downie said. "We didn't pay enough attention to the minority."

I agree. But does it really do anyone any good to simply admit -- over a year later -- that they shouldn't have just regurgitated the administration's spoon-feeding all over the front page every day? Will they apologize to the families of nearly 1,000 US soldiers who have needlessly been sacrificed as a result of insufficient questioning of the Bush administration about the rationale for war? Will major media outlets like the Washington Post actually change their behavior in the future?

Now that I think about it, of course they will. If Kerry is elected, at least.

Actually, I'm very much afraid that if Bush decides tomorrow to go after Iraq or Cuba or - God forbid - North Korea, these newspapers will do the same damned thing all over again. Some liberal media.