Memo to Scott McClellan: Here's what happened

Until now, we've resisted the temptation to post on former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's new book, which accuses the Bush White House of launching a propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq.

Why? It's not news. At least not to some of us who've covered the story from the start.

(Click here, here and here to get just a taste of what we mean).

Second, we find it a wee bit preposterous -- and we are being diplomatic here -- that a man who slavishly - no, robotically! -- defended President Bush's policies in Iraq and elsewhere is trying to "set the record straight" (and sell a few books) five years and more after the invasion, with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country.

But the responses to McClellan from the Bush administration and media bigwigs, history-bending as they are, compel us to jump in. As we like to say around here, it's truth to power time, not just for the politicians but also for some folks in our own business.

Bush loyalists have responded in three ways:

1)  Scott, how could you?  This conveniently ignores the issue of what Bush did or didn't know and do about intelligence on Iraq, converting the story line into that of wounded leader and treasonous former aide. (That canard was the sole focus of a CBS news radio report Wednesday night).

2) Invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Okay. When do Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, et al *not* say that?  Dog bites man.

3) It was an intelligence failure. The CIA gave us bad dope on WMD and, well, they're the experts. More on this in a second.

The news media have been, if anything, even more craven than the administration has been in defending its failure to investigate Bush's case for war in Iraq before the war.

Here's ABC News' Charles Gibson: "I think the questions were asked. It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. It is not our job to debate them. It is our job to ask the questions.” And “I’m not sure we would have asked anything differently."

Really?

Or this from NBC's Brian Williams: “Sadly, we saw fellow Americans — in some cases floating past facedown (after Katrina). We knew what had just happened. We weren’t allowed that kind of proximity with the weapons inspectors [in Iraq]. I was in Kuwait for the buildup to the war, and, yes, we heard from the Pentagon, on my cell phone, the minute they heard us report something that they didn’t like. The tone of that time was quite extraordinary.” And this: "“It’s tough to go back, to put ourselves in the mind-set. It was post-9/11 America."

So the Pentagon tells the media what kind of reporting is in- and out-of-bounds?

Hogwash. Hogwash! HOGWASH.

We confess that here at McClatchy, which purchased Knight Ridder two years ago, we do have a dog in this fight. Our team - Joe Galloway, Clark Hoyt, Jon Landay, Renee Schoof, Warren Strobel, John Walcott, Tish Wells and many others - was, with a few exceptions, the only major news media organization that before the war consistently and aggressively challenged the White House's case for war, and its lack of planning for post-war Iraq.

Here are Bill Moyers and Michael Massing on the media's pre-war performance.

Enough self-aggrandizing trumpet-blowing. OK, Scott, What Happened?

Here's what happened, based entirely on our own reporting and publicly available documents:

* The Bush administration was gunning for Iraq within days of the 9/11 attacks, dispatching a former CIA director, on a flight authorized by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, to find evidence for a bizarre theory that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. (Note: See also Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill on this point).

* Bush decided by February 2002, at the latest, that he was going to remove Saddam by hook or by crook. (Yes, we reported that at the time).

* White House officials, led by Dick Cheney, began making the case for war in August 2002, in speeches and reports that  not only were wrong, but also went well beyond what the available intelligence said at that time, and contained outright fantasies and falsehoods. Indeed, some of that material was never vetted with the intelligence agencies before it was peddled to the public.

* Dissenters, or even those who voiced worry about where the policy was going, were ignored, excluded or punished. (Note: See Gen. Eric Shinseki,  Paul O'Neill, Joseph Wilson and all of the State Department 's Arab specialists and much of its intelligence bureau).

* The Bush administration didn't even want to produce the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs that's justly received so much criticism since.  The White House thought it was unneeded. It  actually was demanded by Congress and slapped together in a matter of weeks before the congressional votes to authorize war on Iraq.

* The October 2002 NIE was flawed, no doubt. But it contained dissents questioning the extent of Saddam's WMD programs, dissents that were buried in the report. Doubts and dissents were then stripped from the publicly released, unclassified version of the NIE.

* The core of the administration's case for war was not just that Saddam was developing WMDs, but also that, unchecked, he might give them to terrorists to attack the United States. Remember smoking guns and mushroom clouds? Inconveniently, the CIA had determined just the opposite: Saddam would attack the United States only if he concluded a U.S. attack on him was unavoidable. He'd give WMD to Islamist terrorists only "as a last chance to exact revenge."

* The Bush administration relied heavily on an Iraqi exile, Ahmed Chalabi, who had been found to be untrustworthy by the State Department and the CIA. Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress were given millions, and produced "defectors" whose tales of WMD sites and terrorist training were false, fanciful and bogus. But the information was fed directly to senior officials and included in official White House documents.

* The same INC-supplied "intelligence" used in the White House propaganda effort (you got that bit right, Scott) also was fed to dozens of U.S. and foreign news organizations.

* It all culminated in a speech by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council in February 2003 making the case against Saddam. Virtually every major allegation Powell made turned out later to be wrong. It would have been even worse had not Powell and his team thrown out even more shaky "intelligence" that Cheney's office repeatedly tried to stuff into the speech.

* The Bush administration tried to link Saddam to al Qaida and, by implication, to the 9/11 attacks. Officials repeatedly pushed the CIA for information on such links, and a separate intel shopwas set up under Defense Under Secretary Douglas Feith to find "proof" of such ties. Neither the CIA nor anyone else ever found anything resembling an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaida.

* An exhaustive review of Saddam Hussein's regime's own documents, released in March 2008, found no operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaida.

* The Bush administration failed to plan for the rebuilding of postwar Iraq, as we were perhaps the first to report. The White House ignored stacks of intelligence reports, some now available in partially unclassified form, warning before the war about the possibilities for insurgency, ethnic warfare, social chaos and the like.

We could go on, but the rest, as they say, is history.

That's what happened.

-- Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay.

Comments

[Laura]

Thank you for the excellent column, and for all the work done at the time. This deserves, though, a larger forum that the Nukes and Spooks blog site. It's time for a front page editorial. Please.

[Murican]

Stroebel and Landay are greater than Woodward and Bernstein. The malfeasance and misfeasance of the Bush administration and its operatives dwarfs any that could even be dreamed of by the Nixon administration. You guys were the ones to call bull on it and you will go down in history for it!

[oldfaithless]

You guys, almost alone, have done a terrific job in exposing this administration's deceptions. Congratulations!!
It is utterly mystifying that anyone is getting excited about McClellan's "revelations." Only the most gullible believed anything he said in office; why pay attention now?

[barrisj]

Early in the (first) Bush administration, the K-R WashBureau was my bookmarked go-to site for the REAL NEWS, and kept me and like-minded people well ahead of the curve during the propaganda assault preceding the illegal invasion of Iraq...time and events have proved the K-R/McClatchy team spot on with their assessments. Carry on your superb work in actually understanding - and executing - the role of a so-called free press!

[david]

>i am a disabled veteran from the vietnam war...and not suprised by scotts revelations from his time in the white house. the biggest problem is that these individuals in high responsible positions should not lie so blatantly. it destroys trust and democracy expecially when the president claims to live on a higher moral plane.

[RandyT, USN Ret.]

We now have well over 4000 American troops killed, a record number of troop suicides, hundreds of thousands of Iraq citizens killed and trillions of dollars spent, so can we agree it is time to stop the madness?

Thank you McClatchy for some honest news.

[Maureen]

During the 2000 campaign, I vividly recall Sam Donaldson saying that if George Bush wins the presidency, we could count on the U.S. attacking Iraq as payback for Daddy Bush. At the time, I thought Sam was being dramatic, but when the topic of Iraq first came up, it brought that comment back to me in frightening clarity. You're right; this is really old news. One can only hope that hearing it this time around will teach people a lesson about being sheep and why dissent is the definition of being American.

[Persona non grata]

Golf clap.

[Rev. Sharpstick]

So when is your book coming out, and what will be the cover price?

[felix random]

when bush elevated osama from a common criminal to the head of a stateless state (no borders to defend, consequently undefeatable) it was obvious that he wanted a permanent war. not a soul noticed, the media bent over and took it and said thank you.

rupert murdock won. he had at that point successfully discredited journalism in america to the point that any lie would do. s.o.p. for him.

the real driving force to invade iraq was the rich aging male's fear of impotency, which is what scott missed. can you say neo con........

y'all didn't miss much but your voice was successfully suppressed by simple omission. rove really did take his major lessons from goebbles intimidate, marginalize, and when ever possible evaporate, anyone who was not fanatically devoted.

thanks for the flat extraordinary effort, it fends off the self serving emptiness masquerading as reporting every time i drop in

[geoff]

Truly amazing. I hadn't realized that you had stories back as early as Oct/2001.

[jrw]

A remarkably restrained column, given the great work done by K-R and McClatchey over the past 5 years. Of course, notice how McClellan's charges of media complicity and cowardice are not part of the discussion we read, see and hear from the media outlets whose failures helped get us where we are. When you generate the news, it's a safe bet you won't be part of the coverage.

[Steve J.]

Your reporting on Iraq and the war on terror has been superb and I only wish I had begun reading it well before the invasion.

[bdd]

Sorry, but those stories you trumpet at the beginning of this piece were posted in 2004 and 2005, a day late and a dollar short. Our free press is certainly not free and rarely, it seems, capable of performing it's role as the eyes and ears of the populace. We're now relegated to commercial hacks touting the corporate line, careful not to stir up trouble. The only "news" is in the sports pages...

[bdd=morelies]

bdd why lie?. Click the links - they start at Oct 2001.

[V W House]

I agree with the last comment by Laura: This excellent review should be more widely circulated. I have come to rely most on your coverage, that of NPR and, though I think it less credible, the NY Times. The rest are in the military-industrial-media complex, complicit in a social disaster. Thank you for your professionalism.

[spud]

My deepest thanks for your reporting and for real journalism.

[Carly Corday]

It is news when a former press secretary busts out to confirm all of this. Stop denigrating Scott McClellan! It's exactly what the murderer in the oval office wants you to do. And boy, are you ALL doing it, led by the shallow, pewling likes of "Dances With Rove" David Gregory.

It IS news. Knock it off, damn you all. You're turning potential harmony in the fight against the monsters into cacophony that resolves NOTHING--OF COURSE--it's what you do. The noise keeps us all off balance, as intended.

[Charles Lumia]

Interesting article.

While I don't know exactly what Scott McClellan said in his book, I have of course been reading articles about it and speaking with people on the issue.

I don't necessarily consider him a trustworthy person, for many obvious reasons; the main being that I don't see how someone can sit idly by and lie to the American people as he did, only to later come out with a book. It's clear that he wants to profit from the situation.

Not that it matters. As you stated, it's clear that many people were misleading the American people, and from the very beginning. Why and how exactly is up for debate of course, but there is no doubt that it happened.

My issue now is that we are in Iraq, and I don't feel that it's an acceptable action for us to abandon the Iraqi people in their time of need. After tearing their country apart, it wouldn't be right to leave them to fend for themselves.

That is of course controversial, many people feel that we should leave Iraq immediately. I think that it's mainly because they are being blinded by partisan politics. I personally am independent and have never been associated with any political party, so I feel that I haven't been corrupted, if you will.

Why I'm bringing this up is because it is very likely that this book, and anything that comes of it, is only going to lead to more support for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. And I honestly care about the people of Iraq.

The Iraqi people didn't do anything wrong. They had a crazy leader, and then we just barge into their country and remove him, kill him, and now we want to leave their country in a huge mess.

It isn't right. We have to help and support the Iraqi people.

[showze]

Biggest moral challenge facing America...is will Bush and Cheney be held accountable?

if not then America is a completely narcissistic society.

[Kansas gal]

Clark Hoyt? What a name from the past. We miss you in Wichita but are glad you are a part of one news organization that has tended to get it right!

[CPH]

Unfortunately, though, despite your professionalism you will be taken down with the rest of the press who cravenly misrepresente the truth, lied to the public and buckled under to the pressure generated by the administration's propaganda department.

[Emily Stewart]

From: Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/tactical-woundedness.html

Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tactical Woundedness

I was just mulling over the response of the White House and former associated figures over the past 24 hours, and realized that there is a phenomenon, used in the past by this and other Administrations, which can be culled out, newly defined, that I shall call "Tactical Woundedness":

Tactical Woundedness: The use of an apparent sense of betrayal, often portrayed through the use of euphemistic insinuation, such as the word "puzzled" and "this isn't the ----- we knew", that is meant to serve as a form of indirection--to draw viewers of an event away from a damaging factual disclosure and towards an implication of personal disloyalty. This relies on the known effect of people to be influenced in the direction of attending to interpersonal conflict over factual inaccuracy--even when the factual inaccuracy may have a considerable impact on their own lives.

See also: Mock outrage; Captain Renault in Casablanca: "shocked, shocked".

If these individuals are indeed wounded, it is more likely an understated wounded pride at their "misunderestimation"--that such a receptive servant of the message, no doubt hired for his unquestioning fealty, would now actually remove the curtain from the proceedings that they expected that he would obediently continue to conceal.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/05/tactical-woundedness.html

[Frank]

The man was a twit when he was on the job and is a twit still. Now he writes a book telling people what they already know and they run off to buy it.

For him to try and come across as some kind of after market visionary is ludicrous. He was/is part of the problem, not the solution.

His proceeds from his book should go to the survivors of those we have lost in Iraq (that would show he really has a conscience, instead of playing it up for his book).

[Canario]

Now we are starting to know and understand the extent to which this administration deceived the American people with all of its rhetoric regarding the war on terror.

As important as that knowledge is, it is also essential we learn why,- in a country that spends so much money, and uses so many resources in intelligence programs-, we were not able to prevent that attack.

We heard the many explanations and rationalizations from Bush and his team regarding our failure to doing so. But knowing what we now know on the manner this people operate I just no longer believe their excuses.

It would be healthy for his nation if we are clear on the reasons why we failed and hold those responsible accountable

[JT]

Excellent piece. Keep on keeping on!

[Midwest Maggie]

Kudos! Again!!

Thank you for keeping us informed for
without you where could we go to
learn the truth?

Please send copies of this post to all of our nation's MSM.

[Kristie Mansfield]

Scott was in a bad place when he left. Could you imagine being the squishy part between the public and the whitehouse?
They lied to him and threw him to the dogs, so to speak. It's obvious he never was one of them, and they aren't above having him commit suicide or going on an all expense paid trip to GTMO. It's still good that he's coming out now, because these sociopaths are still in power and trying to start just one more war, and we still need the keystone.

[Elmo]

Thanks to you, and a few others who believe that journalism is supposed to be something more than entertainment and something less than propaganda, we can say that we have known this for quite some time. The puzzle remains why so few of us seem to have taken the trouble to find out.

[john]

Good job, excellent column. The only folks who still understand the role of the news in our democracy.

I wish you would buy the NYT.

[John Moffett]

OK, so while many knew all this long ago, the corporate media ignored it all and acted like the Iraq war, outing Plame, torture, etc. were all normal.

So now that an insider has confirmed it was all based on a pack of lies, why isn't the word impeachment on everyone's lips?

[J W Alsip]

"Memo to Scott McClellan. . ." should be required reading to all congressional and presidetial candidates.

Generally, I do not favor media takeovers, but McClatchy taking over the "Miami Herald" sure made the "Herald" a better newspaper.

[Corey Mondello]

All of those involved in the creating the "build up" to invade Iraq, should be tried for war crimes, like the Nazis, and look what happened to a bunch of them....

Corey Mondello
Boston, Massachusetts
www.CoreyMondello.com
5-30-08

[bob]

The Hague. Immediately.

[Cynicor]

What I don't understand is why the people who were RIGHT about this all along - the "experts" - are frozen out of all "expert" discussion on our news outlets.

[Morel]

You guys (and gal) are just remarkable. When the marmongers were salvating, you took a stand. Unfortunately no one listened. My own paper, The Ledger Enquirer (which is a part of the McClatchy chain of newspapers) in Columbus,GA didn't run the stories you guys put forward, instead opting for the NYTimes' Judy Miller and Michael Gordon misguided articles.

May God continue to bless you guys, as well as the fortunes of McClatchy company itself.

[Casual Observer]

Glad you all are blogging. Yes, McClellan's book has a lot of rehashing in it (but some important new bits as well, see emptywheel, on Plame case, for example). But it has had a good impact on the media generally, in that they are perhaps finally beginning to get a glimmer of a clue about how they were played, and how complicit they have been--before and after the invasion.

Glad you're doing this, and please keep it coming.

[Not All Iraqis Agree]

Georges Sada.

[izzatxeaux]

thank you, thank you, thank you - at a time when millions of us felt alone in some wilderness, your reporting was an oasis of sanity.

mad props to Mr Walcott as well

history will be kind to you all

hope you are aware you have legions of readers and admirers on the progressive blogs

now - could we have more truth to power time

on torture?

on the disappearance of Khalid Sheik Mohammed's wife and children ?

on caging and other organized efforts by the Administration and Republican Party to deny US citizens their right to vote ? (you know, that whole US Attorney thingy)

why, in the face of these crimes against the Constitution, the democratic leadership has refused to impeach ?

and could ya have it on my desk by lunch ?

thank you !

[ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©]

=>Generally, I do not favor media takeovers, but McClatchy taking over the "Miami Herald" sure made the "Herald" a better newspaper.<=

I'd like to seee McClatchy take over the Washington Post.

Job 1: Fire Fred Hiatt.
~

[Robert P. Ewing]

Thank you for your efforts over the years in connection with the run-up to, and continuing horror of the war in Iraq. You truly deserve all of the awards and accolades that have come your way. Would that a larger portion of the press had operated in such a strong (and absolutely proper) manner when things could have turned out differently.

[Casey]

Thank you for this!

The media pile-on that has been on display this week is really something to see. I would say that they are touchy, touchy, touchy when anyone questions their years of acting like stenographers for the Bush administration.

They say, "We asked right questions! That's all we can do!" Clearly, this news organization proves them wrong. If nothing else, they could have called YOUR reporters for some honest information!

To watch the entire Washington press corp (with a few exceptions) spew forth the Bush administration talking points about McClellan and his book is as revealing as the book itself.

Have they no shame ...

[ckennedy]

I've said all along that if I could sit at my computer in my own house and find out what was really going on as early as the fall of 2002, that there is NO excuse for journalists—unlike you, the "alternative" press, and a few independent voices who got it right—except that their heads were so far up their asses that they really couldn't see. Shameful.

[rxbusa]

digg this at http://digg.com/political_opinion/Blog_Nukes_Spooks

[thedeanpeople]

How about what's NOT happening?

Impeachment

Yes, the euphemedia has the same responsibility for reporting on the insanity of non-impeachment as it did on Iraq.

No, it is not a "partisan issue" any more than torture, illegal spying, terrorizing the nation into war -- or any of the other realities that demand it be undertaken -- to save lives.

Failure to impeach -- and the non-reporting of that failure -- is a symptom of the same disease being lamented now.

---

[RAM]

During the past few days, I've heard lots of folks denigrating McClellan's book because he supposedly is only saying things that "everybody knew."

Everyone in town might "know" my neighbor robbed the local gas station. But if he writes a book admitting he did it, it puts the knowledge on an entirely different plain.

And that's the value of McClellan's book--it's the admission of truth by an insider and confirmation of all that stuff we "knew," from the Downing Street Memo right on through the Katrina mess.

[SuSu]

Why this John Dean wannabe momma's boy Rove-puppy is selling books and pimping media time instead of telling it to authorities under oath is simply beyond the pale.

McClatchy Boys ROCK. I owe your bureau -- and the few others out there of your ilk -- a sincere debt of gratitude for the years of sourced investigations that, for me, effectively serve as Kryptonite against the hypnotic sheeple-fying influence of our pathetic MSM. I seriously love you.

Speak truth to power, indeed! Landay and Strobel's piece deserves to be The Most Forwarded Post in the History of the Internet.

[Tahut]

I too agree that Stroebel and Landay are greater than Woodward and Bernstein. Unfortunately, McClatchy/Knight Ridder were marginalized and ignored by the MSM. The investigative reporting was well thought out, researched, well written and to the point, but didn't receive the recognition it should have.

And its not the fault of McClatchy/Knight Ridder...it's the MSM fault for being too accomodating/embedded with Bu$h and his administration.
The MSM needs to realize they dropped the ball when McClatchy/Knight Ridder gave them the latteral pass on the truth behind the curtains.

[War On War Off]

Thank you so much for this documentation. Ladies and Gentlemen, let the War Crimes Tribunals begin!

[ch2]

Thank you, you are American heroes.

[Juddyduval]

I want to see what Scott McClellan will do next? Is this the beginnings of him testifying before Congress? Is he showing us a sign that he is ready to cooperate? Or is this just for the money?

Out of all those in the Bush Admin, he is one will integrity, I believe. He went against everyone in the Admin. His job is just P.R. He molds the B.S. into cotton candy for the children to gobble.

[Painfully Awakening]

If anyone thinks the behavior of Bush and Cheney deserves an official, open investigation in Congress - as in "Cheney impeachment hearings!", which have been on hold ever since the Resolution reached the House Judiciary Committee - consider adding your name to the site of Rep. Robert Wexler (who called the other day for bringing McLellan in for sworn testimony) at

www.WexlerWantsHearings.com

[Dave]

There is one reason, and one alone, why McClellan's book is important, if not exactly "news":

This administration has taken secrecy to the level of an art form. It does not believe in creating a public record -- hence, millions of missing e-mails, hard drives destroyed, meetings going unrecorded, and more.

We will see when this gang blows out of town that there is very little left on which to hang a true historical judgment.

So Scotty Mac's book, as late to the party as it is, provides a historical record of this awful time.

And given how few damning records will survive the change of administration, his book and the books of others may become far more important than insider tell-alls of other administrations because they may be the ONLY honest (or semi-honest) records left.

[John Fairbanks]

As a former ink-stained wretch who has watched, first with dismay and then with anger, as so many of his former colleagues in the field went down on both knees before the Bush administration while you and a few others actually went out and did your jobs, let me just say, "Right On!"

[Philip Henika]

McClatchy:

Not mentioned here is lack of effort on the part of the Bush Administration with regard to the Middle East peace process. Last year, we were able to compare the 2002 NIE on Iraq with the 2007 NIE on Iran which solidified proof that faked intelligence was used to justify the Iraq war. Now may be the time to compare peace efforts with Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter.

President Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East provided a glimpse into what it might take to produce a viable peace process in the Middle East. He was condemned for his efforts under no uncertain terms and, although I use McClatchy as my first source of media, McClatchy did not report on Carter's trip.

IMO, Carter is the indicator species of peacebuilding in the Middle East i.e a peace process which is not used for deception.

Bush's trip to the Middle East contained nothing but 'us versus them' i.e. the peace process was "downplayed" which is catchall term for alternative solutions to Bush's fixed agenda.

Bush's provocations in the Middle East are extremely dangerous. If Bush refuses to explain his actions then I will try to fill in the blank for a possible motive: Evangelicals beleive that Armageddon must proceed the Second Coming of Christ.

[SuSu]

Bingo, PH @ 10:35 am.

Seen Max Blumenthal's Rapture Ready? (EZ find on YouTube.)

[M Tobias]

Thank you for the truth to power. God knows we need it more than ever in this time of spurious "news" and internet. Days are tough for news and newspapers.

[joe]

McClellan book is a gift for Obama.. but Bush is only a part of the great conspiracy. MSM and main stream religion also played a major roll in the propaganda campaign leading up to the Iraq war.. But the Iraq war wasn't about WMDs, or advancing democracy not even about oil.. According to Bush adviser and member of the 9/11 commission Phillip Zelikow , he said the "Iraq war was launched to protect Israel." Its all about Israel and the NWO agenda. The White House and the MSM has covered-up this truth.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/05/15/the-new-world-order-religious-and-political-conspiracy/

[ERW]

The unintended consequence of this book, is that we all are looking at the MSM.

You guys got it right - no doubt. The horror was, and is, that you were voices in the wilderness. You yelled. Nobody heard.

We now have a "silence" about all the military "analysts", that were paid by the Pentagon, that were hired by the networks to add to the selling of the war.

That too, has become a story that the MSM would prefer would go away.

Keep hammering.

[kpknox]

you guys rock! I was reading your stories (the left blogosphere had them posted everywhere) and telling my sceptical friends too -

funny how scotty tells the truth and the right accuses him of sounding like the left wing blogs - LOL!

[Jay B.]

Great post. Congrats.

One thing though on this notion that McClelland is just trying to pimp a book using 'inflammatory' observations to crank out sales: Really?

Here's an uber-connected flack (in Texas and DC) with an impeccable resume who could have made 20X more with an oil concern, pitching Big Pharma, "reporting" for NBC, lobbying for a despotic government or working as an adviser to install one here by not publishing this book.

If he just kept quiet (on, granted, things you guys and many of us already knew), the GOP crony capitalist system would have worked for him just fine.

This doesn't make him a hero, but it makes him an interesting case. It makes him a Republican with a conscience of a sort. Who knew they made those anymore?

[allen]

No operational connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda Warren? What do you call it then when in the summer of 2002 Al Qaeda terrorists were at the all world terrorists' training facility outside Baghdad known as Salman Pak where they were receiving training in, among other things, chemical weapons and poisons, and they were being trained by the Iraqi military intelligence apparatus known as Unit 999? Ever heard of Ansar al Islam or Abu Musab al Zarqawi or Abdul Hadi al Iraqi Warren? What was Ayman al Zawahiri doing in Iraq in the late 90's(Where he picked up a check for $300,000) Warren? Was he selling girl Scout cookies? Hey Warren, people like Yosef Bodansky, Con Coughlin, Ken Timmerman, Ray Robison, George Sada, Jack Shaw, Bill Tierney, Dave Gaubutz, Rolf Ekeus, Ion Pacepa, Ihor Smeshko, Yvgeny Primakov and many others have more knowledge on this subject in their toejam than you could ever possibly have. Oh by the way, Bill Clinton and the democrats were saying the exact same thing for 8 years before George Bush even became president. As a matter of fact, in 1998 Bill Clinton's policy on Iraq was "Regime Change." George Bush carried out Bill Clintons policy Warren, what are you whining about. Oh I forgot, in the 90's Bill Clinton and the democrats were speaking the truth about Saddam and his WMD programs and his connections to radical islamic groups and when George Bush came along, Saddam Hussein had an epiphany and became a born again innocent goat herder, dirt farmer and tree hugger. Sorry, my bad. Bwahahahahahahahaha.

[c-RED]

Hurray for socialism.....

Ok, put it like this. Let's say your state governor is killing your whole town, your family and limiting hardly any freedom to anybody. He claims to have WMD's and won't let anyone come in for inspection. Terrorism around your region is escalating. This kinda sounds like this Saddam Hussein guy I've heard about. What do you do?

I guess we shouldn't do anything according to all you people.

[oldfaithless]

Isn't it equally "preposterous" that the same troops are "fighting and dying to stabilize that country" who first fought and died to de-stabilize it?

[abrookfire]

thank you! i was reading you guys way back when i could find you in the far reaches of the newspapers or on the web and went crazy wondering why nobody else was jumpin on this stuff. aaargh! thank you for asking questions that critical thinkers want asked. sheesh. to all you reporters who weren't asking... think! ask! make em answer!

[John Exdell]

C-red is mistaken on the facts in three ways. First, Saddam was not "killing the whole town" at the time of the U.S. decision to go to war. He had engaged in mass killings to put down the Shiite revolt in 1991, but there were no ongoing mass violence in 2001-03. Second, Saddam did not claim to have weapons of mass destruction. Third, he did agree to let UN inspectors in the country to investigate without any limits by Dec. 2002. C-RED's mistakes are the result of the Bush-media lies noted in the article, and his own gullibility. The question is whether he willfully refuses to learn from his mistakes.

[Philip Henika]

Alien:

You share with Scott M. a penchant for old news. This 1990 report mentions Salmon Pak:

http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/intel/961031/0408pgf_90.txt

Philip

[T.Maes]

No, you were not the only journalists who reported all the bs this administration was touting. Democracy Now did and continues to keep us up on what's really happening. Amy Goodman - on Democracy Now.

[Crust]

Thank you

[Philip Henika]

Alien:

While you seem to be interested in events that are 20 years old, Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay are reporting on what is happening NOW e.g the US is losing influence in the Middle East:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38319.html

Posted on Friday, May 23, 2008

Mideast negotiations now bypassing Washington
By Warren P. Strobel and Hannah Allam | McClatchy
Newspapers

"...WASHINGTON — In a week of dramatic developments in the Middle East, the most dramatic development of all may have been the fact that the United States, long
considered the region's indispensable player, was
missing in action.

As its closest allies cut deals with their adversaries
this week over the Bush administration's opposition,
Washington was largely reduced to watching.

More painful for President Bush, friends he's
cultivated — and spent heavily on — in Lebanon and
Iraq asked the United States to remain in the
background, underlining how politically toxic an
association with the U.S. can be for Arab leaders..."

[RBStanfield]

With the "bitterness" of a McClatchy stock holder, "The other media has been very profitable, particularly, News Corp tell the truth, provide an invaluable service and your stock price tanks." When are we going to learn?

BTW, The Philadelphia Inquirer has go to hell since the Toll Bros took over.

[RBStanfield]

With the "bitterness" of a McClatchy stock holder, "The other media has been very profitable, particularly, News Corp tell the truth, provide an invaluable service and your stock price tanks." When are we going to learn?

BTW, The Philadelphia Inquirer has go to hell since the Toll Bros took over.

[PISSED]

Impeachment is only part of what us American SHEEPLE need to do. It is the duty of each and every American citizen to ELIMINATE A TYRANNOUS GOVERNMENT. But the sad fact is that our goverment in concert with others have lied to the world about their 9-11 FALSE FLAG operation, and are responsible for taking the lives of roughly 4,000 people on that day, in order to set the stage for taking even more lives in Afghanistan and Iraq with their FALSE WAR ON TERROR. The government has been out of control for decades and is simply getting worse each and every day.The mainstream media is controlled by them and those who are not controlled eventually are eliminated or suicided off.......My question is WHEN WILL THE SHEEPLE OF THIS GREAT NATION STAND UP AND TAKE BACK CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?WHEN WILL THEY STAND UP AND BRING EACH AND EVERY PERP. TO JUSTICE INSTEAD OF JUST SITTING AROUND TYPING ABOUT IT????!!!!! NEVER - as the GREED of today controls all of the sheeple and all are easily bought off - WITH OUR MONEY$! WAKE UP PEOPLE OR JUST LIE DOWN as your country - YOUR WORLD is destroyed before your very eyes by the TRULY EVIL persons in control. WE MUST REMOVE THAT CONTROL - NOONE ELSE WILL.

[Vida]

" ... with U.S. troops still bravely fighting and dying to stabilize that country."

With all due respect, there is absolutely nothing "stabilizing" about American military presence & actions in Iraq. It's imperialism, plain and simple. C'mon, McClatchy folks, you can do better than that. I guess you yourselves can be prone to falling for the Administration's heinous spin on what's actually happening over there.

[Peter Principle]

"Enough self-aggrandizing trumpet-blowing."

If anyone has the right to blow the self-aggrandizing trumpet a bit, it's you folks.

What's amazing is that the rest of the corporate media is still bending over backwards to try to protect Bush.

But, of course, what they're really trying to defend isn't that sorry son of a bitch but their own shredded reputations. (Good luck with that.)

[OldFortran]

I just want to thank you for understanding that journalism requires skepticism, not stenography.

Charlie Gibson and Brian Williams think journalism is about looking good on TV, chumming around with the powerful, and raking in the millions.

They see themselves as peers of the powerful people they cover, and identify with them far more than the viewers they condescend to.

Rather than speaking truth to power, they have become the spokespersons for power, presenting the propaganda of the powerful as truth.

[donovong]

WHAT?? How dare you actually stoop so low as to publish actual examples of published, readily verifiable evidence of JOURNALISM?!?!?

That is NO LONGER acceptable in this society! Please review your manual of politically correct, corporate party line-item BS newspeak, and correct your morally correct, insidious truth.

[scarshapedstar]

Thanks so much. I will be reading your blog from now on.

[Susan]

I've said this before. I'll keep saying it. Thank you for what you tried to do. I was reading your stories. I thought the rationale for war was BS. I live in rural Iowa. How hard could it have been for the poohbahs of TV to ask a damn question?

Over 4,000 of our dead, thousands more dead Iraqis. Millions displaced, wounded, forever harmed. And we have to listen to the likes of Brian Williams making excuses. They are complicit, and they know it.

[bughunter]

Excellent work, KR-McClatchy team. I've been reading your work since the Bush inauguration in 2000 when it became obvious yours was the only objective, serious journalism remaining in traditional print media.

Your organization is the seed vault in a journalistic nuclear winter. I can only hope you inspire an even larger cadre of next-generation journalism students to restore integrity to the profession in the coming aftermath of this administration. It ain't gonna be pretty, and a lot of people are gonna be pissed.

Show 'em who to be rightfully pissed AT.

[bughunter]

Boy, did I mangle the english language in that last sentance...

"Show 'em at whom to be rightfully pissed."

[bigtexxx]

Nicely done, lady and gents! It's funny that the one word that's still missing, even after all the events you've cataloged, is "lie." Misrepresented, untrustworthy, discredited, distorted--where is the use of the plain ol' word, LIE. Bush lied. The administration's minions lied. Can't somebody just come out and say that? What other conclusion can we reach after examining the facts you've presented here?

Keep up the good work; history will judge you well.

[karrsic]

To anyone with their eyes open and a healthy dose of skepticism, the justification leading up to the war was simply a marketing campaign.

It should also be noted that Cheney continues to lie to this day about the justifications for war ON Iraq. He has never been adequately called out for his over-the-top war-mongering utilizing disproved assertions.

[Warren]

Allen - We are generally shying away from responding to comments here, in the interests of letting a free debate take place.

But when assertions are made and portrayed as fact, we feel the need to correct the record.

To take your points in order:

Regarding Salman Pak, while the Bush administration and others alleged its use as a terrorist training facility for non-Iraqis, after the war, no evidence was found to support this assertion. You can read our story at:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/story/16334.html

or read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report (pages 82-85):

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Regarding Ansar al-Islam and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they were located in part of Iraq (the North) not controlled by Saddam in 2003. Zarqawi's ties to al Qaida and Osama bin Laden were murky at best until after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when he later swore fealty (bayat) to bin Laden. (I'm not suggesting those two events were necessarily linked).

The CIA's own reporting before the war (circa 2002) expressed uncertainty as to any relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and Zarqawi. After the war, it became known that Saddam's intelligence services had tried to track down and capture Zarqawi. They rejected al Qaida's overtures for safe haven and other assistance.

Here's our story:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/margaret_talev/story/14736.html

Or you can check the previously mentioned Senate Intell Committee report, pages 85-94.

A couple of other facts I would point out are that

1) No evidence has ever emerged that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. All the theories posited (the Woolsey/Wolfowitz/Mylroie theory, the supposed meeting in Prague between 9/11 hijacker Atta and an Iraqi intelligence agent) have long been discredited.

2) As mentioned in the original post, the CIA said in October 2002 that Saddam would likely only conduct terrorist attacks on the United States, or give his supposed WMD to terrorists, as a last resort in the face of an impending US attack.

3) Finally, a review of thousands of pages of the regime's own documents, captured during after the US invasion of Iraq, found no evidence of an operational relationship between Saddam and al Qaida.

Here's our story, with links to the report itself: (to be fair, the report does show that Saddam and his intelligence services did have contact with bad guys. But it makes clear that the target of terrorist/assassination operations that Saddam's and his intelligence services contemplated or carried out was his political opponents, in Iraq and elsewhere):

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/29959.html

Regards
Warren

[Arch Stanton]

"Our team ... was, with a few exceptions, the only major news media organization that before the war consistently and aggressively challenged the White House's case for war, and its lack of planning for post-war Iraq."

That's a gigantic steaming crock (obscenity deleted). If your "media organization" had in fact "consistently and aggressively challenged the White House's case for war" then you need to post your references instead of sanctimonious pronouncements.

[bughunter]

Stanton - click the links in the story. The references are right under your nose.

The odor you are detecting is coming from your own crock.

[readtheoriginals]

Let us get this Iraq thing straight:
Regardless of what Bush wanted to do in 2002, the second Gulf war was legal. All nations of the UN surrender the use of force (except in self defense-Art 42,51) to the Security Council- Art2(4). The UN Security Council approved the invasion of Iraq because Iraq was in "material breach" of UNSC resolution 1441 and Gulf War I resolutions 660, 678, and 687 (1990-1991). In layman terms: he broke the cease fire agreements and UN resolutions. EVERYONE thought there was some kind of WMD there, including the French (who were definitely not on the U.S. side at that time) and all agreed with Hans Blix's assessment that the Iraqis were not compiling with WMD inspections. While Karl Rove's magical jedi powers are impressive, it would have been hard for even him to fool 9 permanent members of the Security Council who have the power to veto. They can't even do something about Darfur (only the Bush admin had the courage to declare genocide occurred). If the UN ignored it, it would have ceased to be.
Read the the Duelfer Report yourself. Look up all the press articles from 1991 to 2003 about weapon inspection and you'll see Iraq got what they had coming. Sadam had YEARS to comply and become a peaceful member of the world. Read the original documents for yourself. Where is the outcry for putting the UN on trial for the loss of life?

Bush was probably correct to use the WMD case as justification. No one cared about the thousands of the U.S. Navy and Air Force, Brits and Aussies (working with Arab Gulf nations too) were over in Iraq for 10 years between the wars, enforcing the same UN resolutions which tried to keep Sadam from extracting vengeance on those who he felt were a threat to his regime. Go read the press articles. Those service men and women were shot at between the two wars under the Clinton administration. Where's the outrage for that? Mean while...the French and Russians made off with sweet Iraqi trade and service contract dollars under Food for Oil.
While Iraq may be a case study for what not to do in reconstruction, either was the reconstruction of America after our own Civil War. I seem to remember it took about 100 years (to include a civil rights movement) to get that one mostly settled.

I haven't heard much about Bush's success to get Libya to give up it's WMD program, uncovering Syria's Nuke plant and bringing A.Q. Khan's (go ahead and wiki that one) network to light.

Where is the outrage for the sacrifice of military under 8 years of the Clinton adminstration (go read his offical statements yourself about Sadam some time-They read like Bush's) for the horrible job in Bosnia and Somalia, not mention ignoring 800,000 killed in Rwanda during his (hilary's) tenure!
The world is a tough place, sometimes force is required. Iraq was inveitable. The first gulf war "ended" with an unbalanced ceasefire. The second war would have been Gore's problem too.

I hope 4000+ families understand that the U.S. wants the world to be peaceful...same as me.

Each one of those lost had their own reasons for volunteering to join the military. Some do it for college money, some to get out gangs/drugs/intercity, some actually do it because they believed JFK when he said "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." The first Iraq war started before many of them were ever out of Junior High School. I am sure they grew up hearing and reading all the same news you did, exposed to the same things as you. Thanks to the sacrifice of other brave young people like those who join the military, these wonderful Americans were free to make their own choice.

Honor those who have fallen by resisting the temptation to twist your political agenda (and repeating the same political mantra that occurs every election cycle) with their sacrifice.

Every President has a foreign policy objective and incidents which change it. FDR had WWII, Truman had Korea, IKE/JFK/Johnson/Nixon all had Vietnam, Carter had Iran, Clinton had Bosnia/Somilia/Iraq. The world is a tough place. Be thankful you can sit back and just talk about it, without having to duck from explosions yourself.

[Jim White]

Thank you for your dedication to the truth. You are true patriots. Please keep it up and help us to end torture and prevent an invasion of Iran.

[has_te]

Thanks for that.

I wish I'd been sentient when you did all that good work.
Oblivious, insensate or 'caught up' and bloody 'elsewhere', mostly...that's me.

[EZ Tempo]

McClatchy has become my own *ONLY* trusted news source. But, I'm still wondering (given the Pentagon General's propaganda program and the "Libby leak to Miller" feedback loop), did the White House do the same with "foreign intelligence services"?

You write: "The same INC-supplied 'intelligence' used in the White House propaganda effort (you got that bit right, Scott) also was fed to dozens of U.S. and foreign news organizations." -- Given that Rice, Cheney, Bush, et. al., continually maintain that the flawed intelligence was the same assessment that France, Germany (?), and other 'allies' were relying upon: I'm still wondering if those foreign services were coming to their assessments based on data provided by the CIA and the White House (and news outlets in their national press)?

That would be something worth looking into, if you had an international news organization... .

[Warren Strobel]

Arch Stanton and others - the stories we linked to in the original post were just a selection of what Knight Ridder and McClatchy wrote on these subjects between 2001 and the present.

For a fuller archive, please follow the link below, and scroll down to "Noteworthy Stories"

Thanks
Warren

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/reports/intelligence/

[advisory]

MC CLELLAN TRIGGERS SKINHEAD SHAPE-UP

The Scott-McClellan revelations have pointed up how the White House,
itself, has been dishonored by the very occupant of the Oval Office
and his henchmen. The reactions of those who have abused their
offices and betrayed the people ranged from "you shouldn't mention
such a thing" to "why didn't he speak up sooner" to "he's just trying
to promote his book." Skinheads have faced similar obstacles in
trying to clean up their ranks. Some have suggested "just keep quiet
about it" or "don't criticize others," under the notion that "unity" is
promoted by keeping mum. However, the silence has enabled critics
to mount an anti-Skinhead campaign, depicting Skinheads as criminals,
low-lifes, drunks and freaks, although quite the opposite is true.

Anti-Skinhead elements have concocted their own films and videos,
depicting Skinheads as wanton or perverse, which are clearly
parodies. Others portray what they claim are "genuine" Skinheads,
engaging in lewd or disgusting behavior, propagandizing the images to
not only degrade Skinheads, but to try to ward off would-be recruits.
Skinheads take great pride in their appearance, blood and ideals.
Their clean-cut stance is the exact opposite of hippies, Beatniks and
punks. However, some individuals have tried to affix tattooing,
nakedness and drunkenness to the Skinhead-image. Whether accurate
or phoney, well-intended or misrepresented, the false characterization
has reached "enough is enough," prompting "finger-pointing" and a
clean-up campaign.

Unlike McClellan, Skinheads have been reluctant to name names. Some,
like Freddie Howell, simply warn Skinheads away from anti-social or
destructive tendencies. Howell, a California Skinhead with several
tattoos, instructs, "Don't defile your body with tattoos. Be pure."
Jonathan Schoniwitz, a Mississippi Skinhead, shaved off his goatee
and moustache, bidding others to follow his lead. Jason Bunnell,
a New Jersey Skinhead, exudes being not only clean-cut but
neatly-dressed. On the other hand, some calling themselves
"Skinheads" depict themselves naked, even dropping their drawers
and getting tattooed, accompanied by "giving the finger," toting
beer-cans and sporting facial-hair. But, Bunnell is speaking out,
demanding "to change things."

Richie Rose, a Kentucky Skinhead, has been a sort of counterpart to
McClellan. He went through considerable "soul-searching" before
finally coming out for the truth. But, he now insists on Skinheads
who are brothers and patriots, not bums and pariahs. "How could
someone claim to be for a clean, upright and pure America," asks
Rose, "while, at the same time, living like a low-life, reject and crud."
Keith Spilman, a Florida Skinhead, sums it up that Skinheads must
have "clean goals and clean appearance." According to Rose, "A
Skinhead should never bring shame upon his people or come across as
insecure." A man characterizing himself as a "Golden State Skinhead,"
who has been parading naked over the Internet, should be reminded
to "keep pride."

http://www.skinheadz.com/docs/history/2008/053001.html
Copyright 2008 Skinheadz

[Philip Henika]

Readtheoriginals:

Please, you are NOT for peace so stop the lie. If you were for peace then you would have paid attention to the details of Carter's efforts in the Middle East combined with the Bush's provocations which are anti-peace. If you were for peace then you might consider a lasting peace as an appropriate testiment for those Americans who sacrificed their lives. If you are for peace then you might agree with the Carter Center's methods e.g. peacebuilding requires the address of the factors that effect people's lives e.g. their health, prosperity and happiness. If you are for peace then you might favor a UN 'global peacebuilding initiative' which would ask nations about their responsibilities with regard to ending war, ending disease, adapting to the consequences of global warming, the efficient use of energy etc. If you were for peace then you might consider the costs of war:
those bllions spent based on the lies of the Bush Administration because of a post 9/11 sales pitch about security and the desire to isolate America from the rest of world which serves to end any hope for peaceful relations with other nations.

[barbara tate]

Of course the MSM was complicitous in the run-up to the Iraq war. If I, a 69 year old woman living in south Georgia, knew that invading Iraq was a huge mistake, why didn't all those savvy media types know it too? I have come to the conclusion that they too live in a bubble and have no understanding of the world outside Washington. And what I remember so well about the talking heads on TV is that they repeated EVERY White House talking point verbatim and they still do. It was sickening to hear them daily all parrot the same talking points that were coming out of the White House. Helen Thomas got it right - they failed to do their jobs and failed miserably. I hold them as much responsible for the mess we're in as I do Bush. But they will never admit their failings because too many people have died because of their failure to do their jobs!

[wanderer]

Careful, don't dislocate a shoulder patting yourselves on the back.

p.s. very good work, keep it up.

[aregee]

In the early days before the US invaded Iraq, I remember sending your bylines to all of my fence-sitting friends, trying to convince them to oppose the war. You were pretty much alone in giving us glimpses of the truth. Thank you for your honest and fearless reporting.

[Warren Strobel]

EZ Tempo - Thanks for the comment. We'll try to respond to the substance a bit later on (it's been a busy day)!

Do want to point out, however, that McClatchy does have an international news organization...

We currently have 7 foreign bureaus staffed. All of our correspondents do great work - and our Baghdad bureau, maintained throughout the war, has won many, many awards (both foreign correspondents and local staff have won).

Check it out:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/131

Best
Warren

[Bonnie Tamres-Moore]

What you have done and continue to do is an absolute good. As David Steinberg says, there is one irreducible word describing the media's self serving reaction to Scott McClellan's charges. It is in the dictionary between bullfinch and bulwark.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart!

[Eric]

I saw Scott on Countdown last night, and he came across as far sharper and deep than I had seen in him the past.

I agree strongly that this isn't anything that observant people didn't know, but I do think it's notable because:

1) It's an insider writing a book on the current administration.

2) It puts the issue back into the news.

[readtheoriginals]

Philip Henika

Thank you for the comment. I am for peace, but I think I am also realistic. Your logic is kind hearted.

I am suggesting that international law and international politics are much more complex than you elude. It is definitely more complex than will be solved tossing election campaign buzzwords around about any incumbent president.

You raise an interesting point: Former President Carter is able to do things a sitting administration simply cannot. He certainly did not move with that freedom while in the job. The position held in the Oval Office has limitations, no matter who sits there. Using a hiphop colloquialism: “hate the game, not the player.” As far as “peacebuilding requires the address of the factors that effect people's lives e.g. their health, prosperity and happiness.” I would say they (the disgruntled peoples of the region) should be taking advantage of opportunity the war is presenting to address it with their own nation’s government. In other words, get up and fix it themselves…but that does not seem to be happening too quickly…is it?

There is no magic wand passed over the world that will achieve a "lasting peace". If such a thing existed, it would have been done long ago. Taking that logic further, there would be no reason for a good Police department either if that wand existed...but I bet you lock your front door at night, before you go to sleep. If you don’t, then you don’t live in a city.

The UN peace initiative is great. But all that has already been done by every nation that ratified the UN charter. If you read the UN charter for yourself (Art 2(4)) there should never be any war. Read it yourself. The US can’t force everyone to get along. There is no Democrat, Republican, or independent who can do that…no matter how bad you want it. The reality is all nations have their own interests and they sometimes override the collective. My UN Security Council analogy is: Try taking 3 young kids for ice cream and tell them they have to agree on the same flavor before they can have any. A bit simple I admit, but not far from reality. Since the end of the cold war, Gulf War I was the first time the UN was used in/as it’s intended purpose. Re-read Bush’s address to the nation in Sept 2001 and Jan 02. Unless you intentionally ignored it (shame on you), you can’t say you didn’t know what his foreign policy was. Scott McClellan isn’t saying anything new.

I think we spend about the same on the military now (per GDP) as we did in the peace around 1940 (before Pearl Harbor). Of course, we were attacked in WWII…

I do not desire isolation. Travel outside the US once in awhile...and I do not mean on a vacation...see this isolation for yourself. I have. My message is clear. Spend some time looking up the original documents for yourself (not someone else’s interpretation for a new article). By the way, I didn’t vote for Bush.

[Tom Wells]

Excellent work.

Thank you for being real journalists instead of cheerleaders for the invasion.

[Pvt. Keepout]

Thanks. You did a lot to strengthen many wobbly knees.

K-R's '02-'03 reporting proved invaluable to an informed, sensible opinion regarding the Iraq war's legitmacy. Unlike the cherry-picked Cheney/Neocon garbage purveyed by most of the corporate media, K-R was among those who did actual reporting serving the authentic national interest.

P.S. Front page editorial, please.

[s117]

Excellent, excellent work folks. Thank you for saying what others were too weak or corrupt to. Really, the Corporate Media is the biggest threat to our country and our democracy that faces us. Bravo!

[jvill]

wanderer: "Careful, don't dislocate a shoulder patting yourselves on the back.

p.s. very good work, keep it up."

They should pat themselves on the back some more. In a sea of groupthink and gonzo nationalistic fervor, they actually did their jobs.

When our country is in peril, attacked from within by the Constitution's domestic enemies like Bush and Cheney, is when Democracy and checks and balances matter most.

Nice work, y'all. Please help us refrain from going to war with Iran on Nov. 1 2008.

[BurningFeet]

So all these "facts" and "information" that was "available" didn't stop y'all from doing your jobs? Did so! Or so says one Timmothy Rutten in the LA Times today, writing about Scotty Boy's new book.

"He should be granted part of the point on the press -- though only part. The news media, no less than the nation, endured a wrenching trauma on 9/11 and no less than any other institution in society felt the moral obligation to demonstrate solidarity with a country under deadly threat. In that situation, not giving the administration the benefit of the doubt, when it presented "facts" it said were based on the best and most sensitive intelligence available from the CIA and other spy agencies, would have been mindlessly adversarial. Moreover, since the media lacked the ability to do original reporting on the ground in Iraq, what basis would there have been for contradicting the administration's assessment of Saddam Hussein's aims?"

See? You guys were just being mindlessly adversarial all that time. The very idea, speaking truth to pinheads. Y'all stoppit. And go wrench some traumas.

[JoeWilson]

McClatchy, and before that Knight Ridder were the only ones to actually offer critical analysis of the administration claims. Strobel and Landay have been on my must read list for years, along with fellow Knight Ridder (Philadelphia Inquirer) columnist, Trudy Rubin.
As I witness the collapse of American journalism, I now read a dozen news sources a day, of which only two are American. McClatchy for contend, the NYT so that I can shake my head yet again at the incredible confluence of incompetence and arrogance that fills its pages, from Gordon to Friedman.
As to the WPost, it is sad to watch Woodward, Downie and Hiatt destroy what was once a great paper. Joe Wilson

[Cyril Blair]

Thanks for all that you do, McClatchy reporters. I raise my glass to you.

[Iconoblaster]

I'm persuaded by this reminder...there WERE a few journalists working at the time, when most of the rest lacked the, err, "equipment" to stand against the thundering herd. I'm renewing my subscription to the Fresno Bee.

[Joe, Ann Arbor]

Hey guys, news flash.... I was living in Europe at the time (2001-2) and there were PLENTY PLENTY PLENTY of expository, mordantly critical stories there, in France and the UK in particular, along the lines described above. In this sense, McClellan's book and the faux outrage/sensationalism surrounding it are at best non-stories and at worst more reasons to hate the Scott McClellans and Dubyas of the world.

So, McC didn't do much extraordinary as professional journalists. What is sad is that they are actually some of the few professional journalists around in the US, and for that they are to be truly commended.

It's sort of like when some kid finds a $50 bill and returns it, or someone points out that they were married for 45 years. We heap praise on them for their moral fiber. But do you reward someone for doing what they're *supposed* to do??

[Tom Maertens]

The network shills are trying to rewrite history...yes, we really did question Bush about his military adventure. Research by a UCal professor showed that 395 of 400 guests on network/cable news shows before the invasion were military analysts pushing the administration line.

The skeptics, the ones who actually practice journalism, were essentially limited to Helen Thomas and, to a lesser extent, David Gregory among the White House press corps.

The only cable show that was critical was Phil Donohue, for which he lost his job.

Beyond that, only McClatchy's team -- particularly Strobel and Landay -- were consistently right. Bill Moyers gave them well deserved kudos.

Unfortunately, McClatchy doesn't have the big city outlets (D.C. or NY) that would have provided the right audience for their reporting.

Instead, Michael Gordon, Judy Miller, Fred Hiatt, Krauthammer, the Murdoch and Moonie (Wash Times)chorus, parroting the Neocon/INC disinformation, carried the day. To the detriment of the country.

[G.Gkerby]

Detroit has been left in the darkness since Gannett took the Free Press from KR. Keep up the good work.

[phred]

Thank you for being reporters, when so many others chose to be merely repeaters.

When the press is owned and manipulated by large corporations with vested interests in keeping the government happy in order to obtain favorable treatment by that government, it is no longer a free press.

[notwithstanding]

Thank you. _Thank you_. THANK YOU!

PLEASE keep saying this! Please don't let your negligent fellow journalists off the hook. Please talk about this as prominently as possible.

The more I've learned about the role of the press in the war, and in fact in enabling most of the more abusive policies of the Bush-Cheney administration the angrier I've gotten. I get even more angry watching them deny any culpability and being unwilling to learn from errors, whether deliberate or no. Our country has been seriously damaged by this government on all levels, and the press continues to behave as if personalities and soap opera matter more than facts and policies. It's utterly disgusting, all the more so because so few of these journalists actually have a feeling for how much suffering they've contributed to.

Please call them on it. Directly. Name names. Keep saying what you've said.

[Marie A]

Thank you.

The administration's duplicitousness was transparent even through the kiss ass television reports, if one followed the story.

Unfortunately, as Dick Cheney, et al, knows, the majority of the public merely reads headlines, if that.

"We're all gonna die!" is always an attention-grabber, obliterating reason.

[Global MoneyVine]

I have been wondering when you all would get credit for speaking truth to power. It's so amazing to me that while the "press corp" (I use those words because most of them are NOT journalists) is spending time in self-flagellation, they have refused to remember the team who researched it, got it right, and had the courage to publish it. Thank you for what you did and for what you continue to do. You're unspoken, and uncredited (except by Frontline, Bill Moyers, and a few other) HEROES.

[LOL123]

The only thing of half interest to me (since we already knew most of the things written in his book) was that Cheney would give information to Fox news so other news would have to cite Fox...good ploy Fox is the authority and others have to pander to Fox...D**ch bag! Well, I guess you guys are already on this too but the first week of June should be busy with the Superdelegates trying to wrap it up by June 3 and the IAEA is planning to review Iran's nuclear issue June 2-6...coincidence...maybe. Hope we send the correct (didn't want to say right) message to them. LOL

[Jim Philips]

I can only say thank you to McClatchy and a hearty thank you to Landay, Strobel and Youssef for not forgetting the the profession of journalism!! This administration has done its utmost to push us away from reality. But the facts have a stubborn quality to them.

[Philip Henika]

Readtheoriginals:

What interests me is pragmatic peace i.e. peacebuilding - especially in times in which globalization has replaced the Cold War. Put your preconceptions about peace behind you and ask the question of how it can and will be achieved. Most peace processes only address one factor - violence - and to do so puts humanity behind the eight ball with regard to other global issues such as global warming, disease, efficient use of energy etc. In order to catch up, peacebuilding must necessarily be multifactorial. With these precedents in mind, peacebuilding has been shown to work on a small scale by the Carter Center in Africa and by ASEAN in Southeast Asia (an effort that I followed for 6 years with Rohan Gunaratna). The peacebuilding models begins with the dictum of 'helping people to help themselves'. If people need help to build peace than it follows that peace is something in the future. The horse is peacebuilding and the cart is peace. It has to start somewhere - precedent has to be set and practice activated with the jury out on the results. If you are interested in peace then you can compare efforts with the model I just proposed. Bush has come nowhere near this proposal. All his efforts have been meant to sabotage Carter and the UN whenever he possibly can.

[Steve Jones]

Good answer. And good work, gentlemen. You too, Ms. Youssef. And Tom Lasseter, of course. And thank God and the US Army for Joe Galloway. I didn't run into your work until after the invasion, but you, and gin, are getting me through the occupation.

[Jonnan]

I confess, I was mostly unaware of your coverage until after I saw it during a Bill Moyers interview.

You were certainly not the only people to get it right (Even inside journalism), but from what I can see, you were probably the most concentrated and consistent journalism that actually checked the administrations claims against the verifiable facts.

I can certainly understand the comment one of your reporters made during the interview when he said something along the lines of "Are we crazy, or is everyone else crazy?" regarding how obviously untrue statements were passed along as incontrovertible by major media outlets.

[readtheoriginals]

Philip Henika
All are wonderful points, but you ignore all the facts I raised. Okay, you seem to imply that globalization (and resisting it) is the new cold war. Is it culture clash?...that is too simple as well. However, one could argue that globalization is peacebuilding. If every nation has an equal investment into globalization, there is real risk of loss on many levels when rocking the boat (violence). Put your preconceptions about globalization down. Globalization does not necessarily mean Dr. Evil like corporations running everything; it means a united and symbiotic system. That is how stability (peace) could be achieved. Someone has to pay the bill fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy of needs (to include global warming, disease, efficient use of energy etc.).
The Carter Center is wonderful. However, 'helping people to help themselves' implies they have the means to perpetuate what you just finished doing. The world cannot do it in its present state. So let’s get back to Carter Center peacebuilding and Bush’s resistance. Bush committed $15 billion to fight Aids in Africa: That means 1.3 million are now being treated, up from the previous 50k from a few years ago. Don’t remember hearing the Clintons/Gore do that one. Is that a good enough start to fighting the disease you mentioned? I mean you have to start somewhere… I give credit where it is due.

I think Francis Fukuyama predicted the eventual global triumph of political and economic liberalism in a book about 18 yrs ago, but that means everything must become a democracy. That sounds like it solves many problems. Don’t think the big country to the left of us likes that prediction though…

You can’t overcome friction (of existing governments) to achieve such a thing without some kind of heat. So why do I mention globalization and global political/economic liberalism? Your idea of peacebuilding one village at time is great, but what if the host government doesn’t want your help? What do you do if your help is a threat to their sovereignty? Would you be demanding Bush’s pinkslip if he used military force as a way into Burma to provide cyclone relief aid? I know what you’re thinking….Don’t even go there. New Orleans was a failure of both political parties.

Again, you seem to be ignoring that 11 of the last 12 Democratic and Republican Presidents (not really counting Gerald Ford) all had some crisis on an international scale to resolve. The big ones were not resolved peacefully. Please note I did not mention the traumatic Oil Crisis we suffered through the Carter Administration (without a “gulf war” to blame it on) in my earlier comments.

So, do you point a finger at the current candidates and say “never again”? Great idea, but its just not realistic. Sounds good for the election cycle, but history shows us it is irresponsible to do so.

[Susan - NC]

They work you did - in 2001, 2002, and 2003, was extremely valuable to those of us who wanted to stay informed.

But there were a few events that I took note of during that time frame: both Rice and Powell claimed in early 2001 that Saddam was contained and not a threat.

Another one in 2002 and early 2003: UN Weapons inspectors were in Iraq, the bushies claimed they knew where the WMDs in Iraq were - yet they could not/would not tell the UN weapons inspectors. That one did not pass any kind of common sense test.

Third, there was never any expressed plan for rebuilding Iraq and getting out of there, prior to the invasion (or since). This told me that they did not give a rip about the Iraqi people. They still don't.

Fourth, Powell's speech was full of circumstantial evidence. This did not pass the common sense test either.... and while this speech was torn apart by the foreign press, our domestic press was simply lapdogs.

Fifth - all Americans and the US military was being "trained" to be racist against Muslims and Arabs.... which Iraq is mainly both. This did not bode well for the final outcome of an invasion and occupaton.

Sixth, Iraq had not attacked or invaded anyone since 1991, and except for Kuwait and Israel, no neighboring countries expressed any fear of Iraq. Therefore going into Iraq in 2003 was clearly a war of aggression.... a war crime.

And we cannot "win" a war crime.

[Steve Jones]

Readtheoriginals? Philip Henika? Could one of you give the other his/her email address and take it private? Your comments are drifting off topic and a bit esoteric, I'm afraid. Thanks in advance.

[Kellygirl]

Kudos to all of you for doing what you are supposed to do. It's a shame that our media is so pathetic that actually doing your job has to be pointed out. Keep up the great work.

[khughes1963]

Excellent work-I only wish more in the press followed your examples. McClatchy has done an excellent job of covering the stories the rest of the press ignored.

[mrsdalgliesh]

:::standing ovation:::

My Knight-Ridder bookmark had a special place in my heart for the years leading up to and starting the war. It was the only mainstream news source from which I could get actual reporting.

I'm thrilled that you all are still calling it like it is.

You did fantastically good reporting in the run up to Shock and Awe, but unfortunately no one in power listened to you because