E&P: Marking 4th Anniversary of War: 'Washington Post' Accepts Some Blame

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor&Publisher: Marking 4th Anniversary of War: 'Washington Post' Accepts Some Blame
By E&P Staff
Published: March 18, 2007

NEW YORK While reporters for The Washington Post have provided some of the toughest and most critical accounts of the war in Iraq, the paper's editorial page, which strongly support the U.S. invasion four years ago, has remained hawkish. Today, however, an editorial on what has gone wrong there also goes out of its way to admit failure on the part of the Post.

Even so, in the end, it continues to argue against a U.S. withdrawal now.

Lengthy excerpts from the editorial appear below. The entire editorial appears at www.washingtonpost.com.

*

An overarching lesson is that the failure of diplomacy is not a sufficient argument for war. It seems as evident today as it was four years ago that sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime were eroding and that the U.N. Security Council had no appetite to prolong "containment" in any meaningful form. David Kay's postwar report suggests that Saddam Hussein would have used the resulting loosening of bonds to build a dangerous arsenal. Yet we should have considered that not as an argument for war but only as a predicate for beginning to weigh war's risks and benefits.

Such weighing must include a far more aggressive challenge to prevailing wisdom than we offered. We were not wrong that Iraqis, like all human beings, crave freedom. But people also crave security. Their loyalties to country may jockey with loyalties to tribe and sect. We may have underestimated the impoverishment brought about by misrule and sanctions and the brutalization born of totalitarian cruelty. We underestimated, too, the regime's determination to fight back and its resourcefulness in doing so.

Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559614

[tbyg52]

1. I don't often say this, but.....

I try to reserve profanity for special occasions. I believe this is one of them.

"the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations...."

Bullshit.

Edited to add (see, this is why I don't often say this) that I am not commenting on the OP but on the idea being floated, yet again, that they took us into war for any reason other than THEY WANTED TO. Period.

[Jade Fox]

3. Exactly....

They "cherry picked and simplified" to create justification for a decision they had already made.

[Hissyspit]

7. Here, let me do it for you.... Wash Post Ed Board: Pathetic Evil FUCKERS!

Blood on their hands.

Brain injuries on their hands.

Dead children on their hands.

Orphaned children on their hands.

People's tragically interrupted and destroyed lives and reputations on their hands.

The Washington Post Editorial Board can go to hell.

[Cha]

2. That's such BULLSHIT!

The washedoutpost can take a LOT of the Blame as can all the mediawhores.

And they're still to blame for the mess our country is getting deeper in each day.

[LiberalHeart]

4. Grrrr .... but look how someone else is marking the anniversary...

http://newsgrinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/milestone-marked-by-tombstones.html

[Captain Hilts]

5. The WP's Op-Ed page failed the good reporting its reporters did.

It was as though they did not read their own paper.

[UpInArms]

6. I call Bullshit

Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.

the whoreshington post can go f*** itself.

We all (or most of us that were on DU at that time) knew that all the crap being spewed were lies - that Clown Powell sold us out - that Tenet was a lying stiff - that the BFEE and the PNACers were hellbent on war in Iraq for oil - remember the first name for the fiasco was Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) - skeptical, my arse...

:grr:

[tbyg52]

9. Trust me, you didn't have to be on DU at the time

Or even reading progressive publications at the time, to know what was going on. All you had to do was pay attention. (I know whereof I speak.)

Edited to add:
Oh, and not be panicked by the cries of "Terra! Terra!" *That* was the hard part.

[UpInArms]

10. here's the coorelation to the terra terra terra and bush poll numbers

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/29_poll.html

(notice this is from our great DUer RadicalFringe)

July 29, 2003

Poll Numbers and Terror Alerts

A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by D Hippauf

Dear BuzzFlash,

A few months after 9-11, a few of us at DemocraticUnderground.com began to notice a correlation between Bush's polling numbers and Terror Alerts/Warnings. A drop in Bush's polling numbers and Terror Alert stories begin to appear in the media within a week.

As of Jan 2003, I began to pay more attention to this "pattern". I have tracked these on my website: , they can be found specifically on this page .

Below is a brief listing of Polling stories, and the related Terror Alert:

* * *

Bush campaign manager warns GOP to expect drop in Bush polls

...and the Terror Alert stories:

Officials warn of new hijacking plans - U.S. evaluating credibility of recent threats

Feds: Official IDs, badges and uniforms are missing

* * *

The following is a brief summary of the latest polling numbers: http://www.pollingreport.com/

Bush's Job Ratings:

CNN/Time Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. July 16-17, 2003. N=1,004 adults nationwide

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job as president?"

As of 7/17/03: Approval numbers are down to 55% from a high of 62% in march. Disapproval numbers have risen to 40% up from 34% in March

Zogby International America Poll and Reuters/Zogby Poll:

As of 7/17/03: Approval numbers are down to 53% from a high of 61% in April. Disapproval numbers have risen to 46% up from 38% in April.

....and the Terror Alert Stories:

After the War

FBI: Phones used to set off bombs

Halliburton theft ups terror fears

FBI Warns of Accelerated Terror Attacks

* * *

Poll numbers Feb. 20, 2003: American Research Group

Poll Numbers Feb. 20, 2003: Poll: Worries Over War And Economy

....and the Terror Alert Stories:

The Terror Alert: Feb. 23, 2003: FBI Bulletin Warns of 'Lone Extremists'

* * *

Poll Number: JANUARY 26, 2003 Polling Report.com
http://www.pollingreport.com/

....and the Terror Alert Stories:

Terror alert: Jan. 26, 2003 US warns that bioterror attack is inevitable

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Thanks for posting this info, UpInArms! nt

[pacalo]

21. They most certainly were lies, pure & simple.

[Lobster Martini]

8. That is so totally inadequate

Can't anyone just say "we were wrong" instead of spewing out rubbish like "there is an obligation to reassess..."? What on earth do they mean, the best post-war journalism suggests that the administration fundamentally believed...blah blah blah. The best journalism suggests nothing of the sort and merely using the word "post-war" indicates that the WP is totally disconnected from reality. There is nothing "post" about the war. Ask the people who have been killed this week.

If there is one thing I find more irritating than lying politicians, it's inept journalists. (You may have noticed.)

Incidentally, the Washington Post was "insufficiently skeptical," but Colin Powell was "catastrophically wrong." Talk about letting yourself off the hook.

[DeepModem Mom]

13. Very good point. Why not, "We were just dead wrong"? nt

[truthisfreedom]

11. Groan. These guys are as bad as the administration itself...

They're rewriting history.

[CBHagman]

14. Do look at the extraordinary number of comments generated.

I only recently began looking at the comments feature on Post stories and commentary, and the results for this one are staggering. Normally I'll see maybe three pages of comments. This one generated at least dozens of pages, perhaps scores (I haven't clicked on the whole series of pages). Look here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2007031700950

The editorial itself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031700950.html

By tonight ombudsman Deborah Howell and perhaps all the staff of the op-ed page will wish they'd gone into some other profession -- landscape gardening, perhaps.

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Thanks for directing attention to these comments. Fascinating!

My own feeling is that, unfortunately, Washington Post editors listen only to a small inside-the-Beltway social group. That is the only group of readers whose opinions they value.

[truthisfreedom]

22. Very interesting.

Me like.

[ninkasi]

15. They lost any respect I might have had

for a true apology, when they started with claiming that the decision to invade was the right one, it was the execution that was flawed. The war would still have been illegal and immoral, and against International law. The whole article was a self-serving load of garbage. Pathetic.

[Joe Bacon]

17. Is there ANY difference between the Whoreshington Post and Pravda?

Once in a while, Pravda actually tells the truth. :shrug:

[UpInArms]

18. oh yeah, everyone knows that Pravda is a propaganda machine

whilst there are some that still think the Whoreshington Post is "news".

:shrug:

[jazzjunkysue]

19. It's still "Blame Powell" instead of "Blame us." So, no apology needed.

They'd have to take the blame first, before offering an apology.

So, since it's Powell's fault, why not insist on an apology from him?

[brentspeak]

20. Let's not forget Judith Miller's bogus reports for the New York Times

[hadrons]

23. I love how "exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified" is NOT lying ....

in WashingtonPost World ... idiots

[Doremus]

24. When the pukes are out and the Dems inherit this mess,

the Post and every other RW rag will miraculously find their investigative skills. They'll investigate every GD hiccup and muscle twitch.

Future mantra: "We failed to see what * was doing, but we've learned from our mistakes now.

Watch for it.

[confludemocrat]

25. OK, fine, as far as it goes. But has the NYT accepted their share or any share?

who wants to read their goddamn editorials anyway, now or ever?

[Justice]

26. They are on the defensive - that itself is telling; but it is still so wrong

They bob and weave using language to try to justify that which cannot be justified. No simple declarations from them, lots and lots of independent phrases qualifying and softening and diluting the actual statements. Lots of hemming and hawing and adjectives and adverbs. I have edited just a portion below to show my disdain for this

An overarching lesson is that the failure of diplomacy is not a sufficient argument for war. (my comment: DUH!) It seems as evident today as it was four years ago (My comment: evident to whom? The necons?) that sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime were eroding (notice not eroded – but just the seeming of the beginning of erosion) and that the U.N. Security Council had no appetite to prolong "containment" in any meaningful form (Again, says who?). David Kay's postwar report suggests (to any person like us wingnuts that want to read it that way) that Saddam Hussein would have used the resulting loosening of bonds to build a dangerous arsenal. (My comment – what a giant jump- because it seemed to us that sanctions were potentially eroding and because we decided that the UN Security Council would not do anything – ie not call for an invasion in the absence of solid evidence, we had to act to prevent Saaddam for going out and BUILDING an arsensel. We have moved from he had an arsenal to – we couldn’t convince anyone that he had an arsensal but we were right to invade because he might build one in the future!!!), Yet we should have considered that not as an argument for war but only as a predicate for beginning to weigh war's risks and benefits.

Such weighing must include a far more challenge to prevailing wisdom than we offered. . We were not wrong that Iraqis, like all human beings, crave freedom. But people also crave security. Their loyalties to country may jockey with loyalties to tribe and sect We may have underestimated the impoverishment brought about by misrule and sanctions and the brutalization born of totalitarian cruelty. We underestimated, too, the regime's determination to fight back and its resourcefulness in doing so.

Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar PREWAR AND POST WAR NON-MAIN STREAM MEDIA journalism instead suggests that the WAS RIGHT AND WE WERE WRONG. president and his administration CLEARLY exaggerated, LIED, cherry-picked and simplified THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE CIA AND WE LET HIM LIE – WE ENABLED HIM TO LIE] but fundamentally believed -- as did the CIA -- the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations....

[ShortnFiery]

27. We haven't nicknamed you "The Whoreshington Post" for nothing!

The Editorial Board, in particular, are, IMO, mostly treasonous bastards! :grr:

Burn in hell? Indeed! You evil corporate media shills. :thumbsdown:

[Javaman]

28. Oh I see how it works...

even though they admit errors they still don't support a withdrawal plan...

Sounds like someone is starting to complain about carrying morons* water.

[ryanmuegge]

29. Would accurate reporting (and subsequent public opposition) verted the war?

I doubt it. Those clowns were determined to invade Iraq no matter what. I don't know that any level of public opposition would have prevented the invasion. The corporate servants in government do not listen to public opinion as it pertains to all other issues, so why would they care about this one? I'd like to think it could have changed things, but I doubt it.

Now, if Gore had been chosen by the Supreme Court in 2000, we wouldn't have invaded.