WP's Walter Pincus "pointedly" observes that those who were right about Iraq are given little credit

[DeepModem Mom]

Editor&Publisher: Pincus Tweaks 'Post' on War Resolution -- How Did Others Respond?
By Greg Mitchell
Published: December 04, 2006

NEW YORK -- In the Washington Post today, longtime national security reporter Walter Pincus observes that several Democrats who voted in 2002 against giving President Bush authority to attack Iraq are now about to play key roles in the upcoming Congress. He pointedly observes that they were "given little public credit at the time, or since," even though they have "turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create."

Pincus was one of the few top people at the paper to push for more skeptical coverage of the run up to the war. Now he points out, "The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons."

Pincus noted that no other reason given to oppose the resolution by others "was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day." A search of the Washington Post archives finds that the main story was co-authored by Jim VanDeHei, who is now leaving the paper....

***

But how did newspapers, on their editorial pages, feel about the vote then?

The Washington Post was typical in backing Congress' decision to give Bush "broad authority ... to move against Iraq." The editorial suggested that it was not a "declaration of war" and "the course of U.S. policy is not yet set." Of course, Bush would later act as if it were equivalent to a declaration of war, and there is much evidence that U.S. plans for an invasion were indeed pretty well "set" at that time....

At the other end of the spectrum, the Los Angeles Times forthrightly declared that the resolution "gives too much power to this and, potentially, future presidents to attack nations unilaterally based on mere suspicions. This could fundamentally change the nation's approach to foreign policy. ... Now that the resolution has passed, Congress and the American people should urge the president to interpret his mandate narrowly."...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003467825

[Trajan]

1. Pincus had my vote ....

for the most honest 'inside' journalist from mid 2002 onward ....

He won my praise weekly here ....

[Lasher]

2. Senator Byrd made his objection clear

His Senate speech got coverage at the time. There's lots of people who are wishing they had paid more attention to what he said.

[LynnTheDem]

3. And Ron Paul.

And a shitload of US military top brass.

And a shitload of US experts from the DoD to the CIA and all points between.

And the Republic Party's top foreign policy expert, Brent Scowcroft.

And former President Bush.

And the overwhelmingly vast majority of the entire world.

And even the majority of US citizens.

But hey, who coulda known. :eyes:

[Lasher]

4. I expect we will be reminded of these things in Congressional hearings

And I hope the first thing on the menu is boiled Rice. I'm gonna be real upset if Democrats give these criminals a pass, thinking there is an advantage to appearing all bipartisan and whatever.

[KoKo]

5. And, as Pincus reported yesterday, Barbara Lee in the House tried to

get an Amendment to IWR that would restrict Bush's power. 122 House Dems voted for it led by John Spratt of SC but it wasn't enough to overcome the Repugs who managed to get Dem crossovers.

The Senates fault was that three Dems were planning to run for President at the time...Lieberman and Edwards who sponsored Iraq War Resolution and Kerry who says that he thought it didn't give the P-Resident the power he took.

Senator Byrd's magnificent speeches against giving Bush power with IRW went unreported except here on DU and a few other places. The Blogosphere wasn't up and powerful at that time.

It's sad that now it's reported what the WaPo and other newspapers did after so much death and destruction but these papers need to learn that "blood" drips from their hands in supporting Bush. "We didn't think the P-Resident would use the power" is a lame excuse for everyone since he had stolen an election and allowed "9/11" to happen. How did we know and they didn't? :shrug: