The [Washington] Post on WMDs: An Inside Story

[GreenCommie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58127-2004Aug11.html

The Post on WMDs: An Inside Story
Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often Didn't Make Front Page

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 12, 2004; Page A01

Days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors, and his piece ran only after assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time getting into the paper." Even so, the article was relegated to Page A17.

"We did our job but we didn't do enough, and I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder," Woodward said in an interview. "We should have warned readers we had information that the basis for this was shakier" than widely believed. "Those are exactly the kind of statements that should be published on the front page."

<snip>

Woodward, for his part, said it was risky for journalists to write anything that might look silly if weapons were ultimately found in Iraq. Alluding to the finding of the Sept. 11 commission of a "groupthink" among intelligence officials, Woodward said of the weapons coverage: "I think I was part of the groupthink."

Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration, some of those involved in the prewar coverage felt compelled to say the paper's shortcomings did not reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White House. Priest noted, however, that skeptical stories usually triggered hate mail "questioning your patriotism and suggesting that you somehow be delivered into the hands of the terrorists."



At least they can own up to their mistakes, unlike FNN or the junta in power.

[havocmom]

1. Secondary reason to keep media from showing the dead arriving at Dover

would be to keep the media from seeing the results of their complicity with the junta propaganda ministry.

If some reporters and journalists were to actually be confronted with the true cost of war, they might just decide their jobs are not as important to them as the truth is to the nation.

[ClintonTyree]

2. Too little...............

too late. If the press had done their jobs 1,000 soldiers lives wouldn't have been lost by Bush's rush to war.

The blood of these people is partly on their hands. They have a duty now to right this wrong. They must expose the Bush Administration for the dirty deals, lies, distortions and heavy handed techniques they so easily use.

They have a chance to redeem themselves if they so choose. I wouldn't hold my breath though. Even if they do, it won't expunge the blood on their hands.

[Kellanved]

3. my problem is the last paragraph

--snip

"People who were opposed to the war from the beginning and have been critical of the media's coverage in the period before the war have this belief that somehow the media should have crusaded against the war," Downie said. "They have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been a war."

--snap

Nobody wanted the media to crusade against the war, but giving fair accounts about the reasoning of war protesters and anti-war nations would have been the Post's duty. The diplomatic trainwreck is by no small part the fault of the media implicitly claiming that all positions other than the administration's are/were Anti-American and stupid.
Also I had the impression that the truth always had been enough reason to start a "crusade" for the WPost. Sad that those days are over.

[flasun]

4. How many dead thanks to your laziness Kurtz

They (the media) all have blood on there hands. Twenty thousand plus people dead. CNN--countdown to Irac..remember? FOX..war on terror.

Now after all the bodies..Lesely Stall, New York Times, now Kurtz. their Mea Culpas. I hope they dream about this for the rest of their lives.

[Rose Siding]

5. From E&P: "Kurtz Explains His Critique of 'Wash. Post'.."

snip>
"Given that other news organizations were doing self-examinations, the time seemed ripe for the Post to do the same thing," Kurtz added. "I happen to think the Post did a better job than many major news organizations on this story." (The New York Times in May ran a much shorter editors' note about shortcomings in its own coverage.)

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000611326

Ummm...isn't following the pack really where the wheels went off the track in the first place?

[Richard M Dennis]

6. Iraq WMD's, where did the WMD's Iraq did have during the 80's come from?

Mr Kurtz, One argument used during the debate prior to the invasion of Iraq to validate the belief that Iraq still had WMD's was the fact that Saddam had in fact, used both chemical and biological weapons against both the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980's. While this was true, it is also true that when Saddam's son in laws tried to defect in the middle 1990's, were questioned by US intelligence, and clearly stated that after the first gulf war all such weapons were destroyed. This last bit of information was seldom reported in news stories written about the WMD issue. My question concerns earlier activity by our own government during the 1980's. During a Senate hearing held in the fall of 2002, Senator Robert Byrd revealed information outlining how the Reagan and 1st Bush administrations actively assisted Saddam's government in the development of his WMD programs. It was revealed that US companies were licensed by our government at that time to sell the equipment, technology, and knowledge that allowed Saddam to build his WMD weapons programs. It outlines the fact that this assistance continued for over 6 years, from 1984 until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. It encompasses the time before, during and well after Saddam used these weapons on both the Iranians and the Kurds. This story, concerning our own governments involvement in Saddam's development of WMD's hasn't yet been effectively reported by a major news organization. And what about the actions of officials like Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell was a Deputy National Security adviser under Reagan, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1st Bush administrations. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in the same administration, and Donald Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy to Iraq during the time that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians. It is reasonable to think that in their elevated positions in the security and defense agencies of those administrations, that they had no knowledge of our governments actions at that time? And for those same individuals some 17 years later to point to Saddam's use of those weapons as justification for attacking Iraq in 2003, when they did nothing at the time is hypocrisy of the highest order. It is said that a majority of the public has for years had more confidence in the GOP on issues of national defense. How many know that the actions of these two Republican administrations helped create a situation that led the current Republican President into a unilateral, voluntary war? The cost in human capital is now close to 1000 American military casualties, plus tens of thousands of wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqi dead and wounded, plus 200 billion and growing from the national treasury with no end in sight. Isn't it time our citizens learned the truth about where Saddam's got his WMD's.

[buycitgo]

8. most excellent first post, sir! Welcome to DU with that.

It also would make a fine LTTE to the Post or New York Times, as it very succinctly encapsulates the perfidy surrounding this junta, as well as the complete abrogation of media responsibility over the last twenty YEARS!

one thing you might mention is Rumsfeld's trip to Iraq in 83, IIRC, and the US's REFUSAL to join in universal sanctions of Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

that doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves, along with everything else you detail about Iraqgate.

[FighttheFuture]

7. All I see is jackals and hyenas trying to hide the blood on their lips...

The real problem here is not whether Saddam had WMD's or not. It's what we (USA) did to confirm that.

I agree that Saddam with WMD's could be contrary to our safety. It wasn't sure as weapons inspections had mostly stopped by that point and sanctions were going to be lifted within a few years. So, how do you confirm this?

Well, you could have threatened him, forced him to open his borders to unlimited inspectors and turn over everything. Hey wait, we did that!! We could have inspected every square inch of the country if we wanted to.

Instead, BushCo has it's plan and agenda and they are going to war by such and such a date. Never mind you cannot prove, or disprove Iraq's denials of WMD's on it's face.

They pursue a war and a unplanned and unwinnable peace. The cost in terms of lives, dollars and future hate is incalculable, except that it may well be the end of the United States.

What the media should be asking is why didn't we choose a saner path of disarming him, as we had all through the 90's? What were the real reasons for this war? It wasn't Al Qaida or WMD's.

Pathetic, our media. I get better news on TV from The Daily Show than any other network. The media needs to be re-regulated and broken up. The Fairness Doctrine re-instated, including for Cable and Satellite.