I can't give you a long intellectual answer. I understood it because I rented a DVD of "Lawrence of Arabia".

Nothing is new under the sun. Empires encounter indigenous cultures that military force alone does not defeat or convert. Empires over extend themselves. Empires decline when they do. The United States is not exceptional. It was blessed by geography and a series of beneficial historical accidents during the 19th and 20th centuries. Our luck may be running out and if so we're going to have to face up to the fact that we are but one nation among many. The majority of us claim to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to save us from our sins and it follows that some of those sins are American sins. So between bad luck and bad deeds we aren't exempt from a bad mess. To get out of it would require facing reality and formulating a foreign policy that fits our resources and our wisdom. Hint: it would have much smaller ambitions.

But it wouldn't be patriotic to make this argument.

But would it be too much to ask that the paper publish a single sophisticated, full-length antiwar argument by someone who was not only right when it counted but who now elaborates on past rightness to sketch a postwar foreign policy?

Houston Wood was a consultant who worked on the Oak Ridge analysis of the tubes. He watched Powell’s speech, too.

“I guess I was angry, that’s the best way to describe my emotions. I was angry at that,” says Wood, who is among the world’s authorities on uranium enrichment by centrifuge. He found the tubes couldn’t be what the CIA thought they were. They were too heavy, three times too thick and certain to leak.

"Wasn't going to work. They would have failed," says Wood, who reached that conclusion back in 2001.

Thielmann reported to Secretary Powell’s office that they were confident the tubes were not for a nuclear program. Then, about a year later, when the administration was building a case for war, the tubes were resurrected on the front page of The New York Times.

Although not working directly in that particular field I suspected that Powell was wrong. One quick email confirmed my suspicion.

The NYT, and other establishment media sources, have disgraced themselves and know they were not objective. In fact some of them (Judith Miller, being the obvious example) have traded journalistic objectivity for access. They now spin (not unlike the very politicians they want access to) to perform a bit of CYA.

Now, belatedly, so many of the mea culpas from the previously pro-war crowd seem to be saying that they will "trust, but verify" next time.

Tell that to the family and friends of the 4000 dead Americans. Tell that to the family and friends of the scores of thousands of dead Iraqis. That's a pretty big "awshit" by any standard of decency and good judgment.

I just about gave up on the NY Times when Jeff Gerth kept the Clinton/Whitewater story alive even after 2 or 3 independent counsles/special prosecutors said they did nothing wrong. And if I'm not mistaken Gerth was also a leader in wrong headed stories on Wen Ho Lee.

Then along came Judy Miller......

finally, they hire William Kristol and that did it for me and the NY Times.

Gerth, Miller and Kristol, strikes and yer out!

It was another shameful week for the media. In all of the 5th anniversary coverage, they analyzed everything and pointed fingers everywhere and at everyone -- but themselves. There was virtually no media re-assessment of ...the media. No need to update title of my books just yet. But more one good look back, you can catch NPR's "On the Media" report online at www.onthemedia.org.

the NYT is known to be a long-time asset (or is that ass set?) for the 'company'.

I vaguely recall the story of how they covered, which is to say did not truthfully recount or report, eye-witness accounts of the pervasive and toxic radioactive fallout poisoning in Japan after we dropped the big ones ... instead they denied it and would not print the first-hand, accurately described observations to the contrary ... don't remember names now, but this can be verified ...

so this practice is not new with the NYT.

"Too Much to Ask?"

Given the estensive poor NYTimes record as a "serious" news organ, I think it is not too much to ask, but it is too much to expect.

I think those of us who opposed the war in Iraq, at least from the spring/summer of 2002, need to become a little self-critical with respect to why we were not more effective in that period. It is perfectly correct to say we had little access to the media, TV or major Newspapers and News Magazines and all -- but what else was tried, and why were we not sufficently inventive and/or persuasive?

How do you form and organize an opposition movement that has some potential for success? We actually had about 5 months "warning" in the midst of 2002, before the Congressional Vote was taken, to put something together -- so what was tried, and why was it unsuccessful? I remember at the time being distressed by the constant calls for big demonstrations -- seemingly the one thing remembered from the Vietnam era, and so wanting another thing from that era, the Teach-in about Iraq, bringing to the fore the substantial Middle East experts and international relations policy folk who were in opposition to present their alternative case. Rather than following the lead of the Administration, and sniping a bit around the edges -- we needed the picture of large numbers of Americans meeting, listening, and asking the questions -- is this smart policy? and are there alternatives?

I know that Joe Biden, then chair of Foreign Relations in the Senate put thumbs down on this, largely because I know he brought huge pressure on Paul Wellstone -- who wanted real hearings to be scheduled -- to essentially shut up. But if the Senate won't do it, then what are the alternative forums available? Without a commonly understood critique and a vision of an alternative plan, an opposition movement is near impossible.

So much as I too slam the print and electronic press for onesidedness and fear of Administration punishment, and the paralysis produced by terror and fear for the lack of many questions, I suspect some cup of responsibility belongs to those who did stand in opposition, and not get traction.

Sarah:

I saw a picture today of Mad Dog John McBomb and an Army major in Iraq grinning together and holding up a sign between them prominently proclaiming: "No surrender express."

This reminded me of the Navy aircraft-carrier crewmen so joyously commandeered by their officers to serve as Deputy Dubya Bush's "mission accomplished" propaganda background wallpaper.

This, in turn reminded me of a slogan the career lifers had back in Vietnam. "Don't knock the war, it's the only one we've got." Which also reminded me of a slogan we drafted-or-bullied-into-enlisting types had: "We are the unwilling led by the unqualified to do the unnecessary for the ungrateful." So, before I would go blaming us anti-war types for not gaining enough "traction" in our efforts to stop mad crusades like IraqNamStan, I would first suggest doing someting about those career military officers who so readily pimp-out themselves and those they command for the cynical political hacks who hide behind them to the ticket-punching profit of their symbiotic relationship.

I mean, what if our Army officers really WANT to stay in Iraq for one hundred years -- as John "no surrender" McBomb so badly desires? If they do, then I say let them take off their Imperial Storm Trooper spacesuits, grow beards, convert to Islam and take Muslim wives. Certainly they ought to have no trouble finding lots of widows and orphaned girls to staff their harems. Anything, just so long as I don't have to pay for their "professional" party or concern myself with agonizing over the enlisted men they keep getting killed to promote their sorry-assed careers.

I mean it. Given the lickspittle, "good German" American military officer corps, I don't feel one bit sorry that I didn't do more to "save" them. They don't WANT "saving," and they have nothing but contempt for those of us who would even try. Therefore, our most effective strategy for Peace has to (1) raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans who say they want these wars so as to pay for (2) the permanent stationing of our Army in Iraq and Afghanistan until they all die the glorious deaths they desire or else mutiny like Alexander's legions did in that same part of the world centuries ago. We just have to let them "not surrender" until no more of them remain to get into trouble; or, until the wealthiest Americans get tired of bankrolling their bloody bungling -- whichever comes first.

In short, like the founders of our Republic told us: ANY standing Army we have will ALWAYS agitate for us to deploy it SOMEWHERE; and ANY president and congress will ALWAYS find a reason to deploy the standing Army for purposes of usurping more power and political gain, even if they have to provoke an "enemy" to provide a pretext for the deployment. (See various chapters of the Federalist Papers for the relevant, precient warnings about the "Gulf of Tonkin" and "WMD in Iraq," etc.)

Not for nothing did Civil War veteran Ambrose Bierce define "Army" as "a class of non-producers who defend the nation by devouring everything that might tempt an enemy to invade." If the "defensive" devouring of us by our own Army doesn't stop, America will have nothing left for an Army to "defend." Not that our Army did much "defending" of us on 9/11/2001. Therefore, I suggest gaining "traction" against Imperialism by using Imperialism's principle tool against itself. The 50 states need national guards in case of national emergencies, but America does NOT need a standing Army. America can no longer afford one. Therefore, any way we can eliminate our standing Army will serve the purpose of saving America.

As long as liberals and moderates believe that the New York Times is "liberal," then anyone who opposes the pro-war, pro-Republican policies advocated on the news pages seems like a beyond-the-pale radical.

It's no surprise that the New York Times won't run critical voices on the Op Ed page; it has never owned up to its own happy spreading of pro-war propaganda. In fact, it now spreads propaganda on behalf of war with Iran.

I canceled my Times subscription two years ago (over its "even-handed" coverage of creationism vs evolution). Have you?

I have to disagree with the assertion that nothing could have stopped the war. I suggest rather that we don't know that because we didn't think it through and try.

As to Military people -- we actually had a number of ranking military people who went public with their disagreements with emerging policy. Zinni, Wes Clark, Jim Webb, by some accounts Schwartzkopf, and others -- but they were left sniping around the edges of Bush/Cheney policy as we then understood it. How different would it have been had they been organized into something like a common effort? A traveling road-show to a series of Teach-in like events?

I also agree that the fear of another al-Qaeda like terror attack made opposition difficult -- but who stood up and pointed out that the al-Qaeda survivors were still in the FATA in Pakistan, still in Afghanistan, and still capable. From what I can tell virtually all of our scholars who had any depth of understanding of al-Qaeda and associated movements strongly disagreed with the Iraq project. Would some of the irrational fear been dissipated if a true opposition movement been able to call attention to that expert opinion. You promote alternative ideas by giving them a platform, and if they have merit, they attract more supporters. All that really had to be accomplished was to create real doubt surrounding Iraq being partnered up with al-Qaeda, and there was plenty of evidence for this available in the public domain in early 2002.

I am totally unconvinced that "going into the streets" ever really convinces observers to ask questions -- doubt the Conventional Wisdom. In fact, I think it may prevent the kind of questioning that asks "what is the truth of the matter." Yes, people do need a means of making public witness to opposition, but that can be accomplished in many ways other than the predictable parade.

Maybe you are thinking of some other NYT, but for my money, Paul Krugman has been right on the war, from the start. His anniversary blog linked to a column five years back, which was about as good as could have been done then.

The Times is the New York Post for college grads. It titillates: it posts lurid pictures of Spitzer's hooker, hires Kristol just to piss people off and send off piles of letters-the editor,and, finally, selects pro-war crazies to review the Iraq war and why, you ask?

Clicks, fans, Yes clicks. You click the page and the neo-con Sulzberger gets ad money. Seems like some hedge fund wants to buy the Times and and they like the digital version of the paper. So, the more crazies Sulzberger puts on your screen, the more clicks, the better the Times does.

You want reality, good reporting, screw it, just click and shut up!