Another good article to understand why the media may be avoiding

[Mass]

Kerry. Not really related to Kerry, but as he has been one of the most vocal reminder of this question, it explains a lot.

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/120105FAIR.shtml

MEDIA CRITICISM:
For Media Elite, Why U.S. Went to War is a Meaningless Debate
Pundits say questioning motives about Iraq invasion is 'irrelevant.'
SOURCE: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR)

One can certainly understand why many in the media would be reluctant to revisit a period in which they and their colleagues failed to do the most fundamental job of the press, which is to serve as a reality check on government claims.
With polls showing growing opposition to the Iraq War and an increasing distrust for the White House, one might think that the press corps would be willing to re-examine how the threat from Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction was used to lead the country into war. But for many pundits, the origins of the Iraq War are old news.

...

When Sen. John Kerry accused Vice President Dick Cheney of making "misleading" arguments about the state of the intelligence on Iraq, U.S. News & World Report's Gloria Borger (12/5/05) was unimpressed: "Ah, 'misleading.' Didn't we live through that argument already? In fact, wasn't that in the Democratic talking points in the 2004 election? Are we still arguing over who lied or did not lie about WMD?"
...

Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria at least acknowledged (12/5/05) that "why and how we got into this war are important questions," before writing: "But the paramount question right now should not be 'What did we do about Iraq three years ago?' It should be 'What should we do about Iraq today?'" This is more important, he writes, because the White House has a "political-military strategy for Iraq that is sophisticated and workable." Zakaria--whose column is headlined "Panic Is Not the Solution"--writes that Democrats should not respond to the GOP's partisan attacks, since "in responding in equally partisan fashion they could well precipitate a tragedy. Just as our Iraq policy has been getting on a firmer footing, the political dynamic in Washington could move toward a panicked withdrawal."

...


One can certainly understand why many in the media would be reluctant to revisit a period in which they and their colleagues failed to do the most fundamental job of the press, which is to serve as a reality check on government claims (see FAIR's "Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg"). To avoid such a look back, however, only prolongs their dereliction of duty.
FAIR is a public interest media watchdog organization. See http://fair.org for more information.

[ProSense]

1. So the media doesn't want the Democrats to respond

for fear that it will make things worse? The media is again proving its complicity by suggesting that the Democrats just sit it out and let Bush continue to deceive and destroy.

[rox63]

2. The media is ignoring the lies

Because it also points out their complicity in playing up the lies that led to the war, and why they didn't question the given reasons.

[sandnsea]

3. Iraq policy on a firmer footing????

Did I read that right?

(We still need that take an aspirin smiley)

How can you take anything this guy says seriously if that's the premise he's operating from.