Washington Post on WMD's - Admits It Was AWOL Pre-Invasion

[otohara]

I hope this isn't a dupe, couldn't find it posted anywhere.

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."

As violence continues in postwar Iraq and U.S. forces have yet to discover any WMDs, some critics say the media, including The Washington Post, failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush's contentions during the run-up to war.

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

[Mountainman]

1. failed the country by not reporting more skeptically on President Bush

Hell! It continues today. Nothing has changed.

[deutsey]

2. I'm shocked, shocked.

:eyes:

[wurzel]

3. Another belated apology? How often are they going to that well?

Shoulda coulda DIDN'T. That is the bottom line. I'm sick of their excuses. No one is that dumb that often. Is this the Woodward of "Watergate"!!!

[Nite Owl]

4. The last paragraph

"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."

No one is saying that they should have crusaded against anything, that's not the media's job. Their job is to present the facts which they were negligent in doing. Too little too late here and they still don't 'get it'.

[Skittles]

5. THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS

AND LOTS OF IT.