But for me, the tears flowed because I remembered all those years when I felt passionate about telling the public the truth, but was unable to do so in a mainstream, liberal, newspaper.

I understand that you were constrained by the consensus of the editorial board but why did you feel constrained in your column? Why would you care if somebody called you a Marxist? Seems to me that you should have used your column to say under your byline what the editorial board wouldn't say for the paper's unsigned editorials. Where do you feel you were holding back?

If you had written a column that flat out accused Bush of lying, would the paper not have run it even as your analysis?

You professional writers are in good company, in your failure to break the taboo and call Bush a liar. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton both lost the Presidency because George W. Bush's lies convinced them to support the war. And they still can't bring themselves to do it.

The war is an obvious failure. Bush has the lowest approval rating in the history of keeping score, and even that low score is inflated about fivefold above what it would be if people stopped believing his lies.

And still...nobody will break the taboo. I don't understand why.

Mia Copa Mia Copa Mia Maxima Copa. Yes you failed. You failed yourself, your paper (minor though it may be), your Country, and the world. Yes you recognize this, but most in Corporate Journalists across the U.S. still avoid that fact, as does our woe begotten Congress. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of semantics nailed the lies of Bush even before he was selected in 2000. How will journalism and editorial boards improve the product, especially under the yoke of the Mega Corp. and lazy journalists?

Pathetic. At least you have the courage to admit what went on. I sat disgusted as I watched the entire media except for DemocracyNow bow down to fake patriotism and Bush. Now, Scott McClellan has more integrity than most journalists. Funny how things change.
The lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children along with thousands of American servicemen have been taken for what? Add the MSM to the list of war profiteers.
Funny how a DARPA project like the internet could turn into the only source of reliable information.

And we need to demand the truth if and when the Democrats retake the White House, too.

As we saw during the Clinton years, Democratic administrations can demand "regime change in Iraq" (which wasn't threatening us in the '90s, either). And a majority of Senate Democrats voted for war on Iraq in 2002.

As hard as it is for "liberal" journalists to criticize the GOP from the left, it will be even harder for them to criticize the Democrats from the left. But it is likely to be no less necessary.

"When I heard Bush's inaugural address, I heard two major lies embedded within his speech. But somehow that still wasn't enough to accuse him of plagiarism and deception."

Ruth, would you be willing to expound upon that statement and let your readers know exactly what those two lies were?

Thank you,
--M

Assuming that most of the non-compromised sources you found were online, why did you not write a column about "the skepticism of the internet about the case for war," and include links to the sanest opponents of war? No one would have been able to touch you for that. Good lord, at least point readers to the truth.

EJ asks:

"What are we to do next time?

EJ"

We asked that same question after Vietnam. New revelations show that the American narrative concerning the Korean war is a narrative shaped and manicured by the same liars and propagandists and propagated by the same lying corporate press as in the later conflicts:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4557315.stm

If one wants to avoid the outright lies and manipulations of the administration (even, if we are lucky, an Obama administration) treat all government claims and the chorus of journalist yes-men with withering cynicism.

Well...

...That is certainly a profile in courage.

...BTW...Did the editorial board every think to look into the massive, football-field sized holes in the "official" version of the events of September 11, 2001 put out by these same pack of lying fools?

...Just sayin' ... might actually be a story there.

Fred Hiatt of the Washingon Post not only has the proof that the United States is winning the Iraqi War, but can justify the reasons for attacking and invading Iraq. If Fred Hiatt and Charles Krauthammer have access to the facts, why doesn't Ruth Rosen?

For me, the tears flow because in the post-Bush race of BigMedia and its acolytes to justify their part in America's most tragic decade, we're already hearing BigMedia shed crocodile tears for national reconciliation and good ole American koom-bye-ya-ship.

Instead you and the rest of BigMedia should be digging for the truth, not for forgiveness. You should already be laying out the evidence for trials here at home and at The Hague because only when the entire world sees corrupt SOBs like Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld on trial will it sleep better, hoping that maybe America's gone back on its medication.

Ruth,
I'm sorry if I get off topic but I just wanted to say that the 2 articles that you wrote years ago on the Powell Doctrine had a profound influence on the way I viewed the Iraq invasion/occupation.

Thank you.

Thanks for this, Ruth.

I've no idea if journalists in America belong to a union of any kind. Assuming they don't, do you think it might be an idea to form some?

In 2004, Steve Hearst, CEO of Hearst Corp the owner of the SF Chronicle, donated $30,000 towards the re-election of George W. Bush (the Paris Hilton of Politics). That same year your buddy on the editorial board, John Diaz, was suspended for donating $250 towards the election of John Kerry, an articulate, well-educated, compassionate war hero. That same year Henry Norr, a tech writer at the SF Daily Comical, was fired for attending an anti-war rally. What liberal media? Phil Bronstein and Will Hearst promised us the Bay Area would get a world-class newspaper if they were allowed to acquire the Chron and kill the Ex. What we got was more features on Burning Man and more Michael Bauer whining about food and wine. What crap!! Newspapers are dying commercially because they DIED editorially , years ago. Who in their right mind would believe anything written in a modern newspaper. Propaganda and public relations and consumer hustlings are that's left of a once great tradition. We've been had.

as an sf resident and news junkie i can assure everyone that the chronicle sucks.

i find myself unmoved by these confessions. you knew the truth, but you towed the line. you valued your job and career more than your principles.

you didn't want to join all those "marginalized" voices from whom you were learning the truth. you wanted to stay within the margins.

i'd like to believe i would have acted differently had i been in your shoes, but, no one really knows until they face the choice.

i'm glad you got this off your chest and i hope you've learned something.

one final point - this administration could not have sold the war to what was a skeptical public had you and the chron and all the other msm parroted the lies. a big segment of the country never believed the lies and the rest are now turned off by the inherent condescension in the belief that the american people can't handle the truth.

bullshit.

charitably, better late than never.

I just cannot generate any sympathy for this kind of narcissistic whining (which is a charitable characterization for what I consider little more than justification for abject moral cowardice) Particularl when it comes to editorial writers and columnists!

Other than the Democratic Senators and members of Congress (who proved themselves lilly-livered cowards as they gave their ascent to the illegal, immoral invasion of another sovereign state) there is no group more culpable for aiding and abetting the massive crime against humanity and peace that is the Iraq War--and with less reason--than the allegedly "liberal" media and the "journalists" who staff it. I cannot help but hold those who would whine as Ms. Rosen now does about "feeling" constrained in utter contempt.

I must ask what it was that made "journalists" "feel" constrained and afraid other than cowardice? That someone would call them names? That's what is written above in so many words. Also we are told that there was some pressure felt about being "patriotic" enough that would justify the moral cowardaice that silence or ommission or lack of speaking out that took place in the media. This can only mean that the "journalists" who followed this course were moral weaklings, more concerned about their paycheck and "status" than in the right or in doing anything that might actually have an impact toward stopping the war or at minimum alerting a gullible public to what an absurd lie it was from day one!

Millions of common citizens spoke out against and demonstrated against the war even in the midst of the near complete cooperation of the media with the Bush junta's lies. Imagine what might have occured had they done their jobs with even a shred of courage and conviction! These "journalists" who now come forward with their stories of being intimidated by little or no overt pressure is reprehensible at minimum. It is disgusting to see the careerist media display their cowardice as a means of cleansing themselves. The excuses do nothing to bring back the dead or to prevent the same gang of criminals from preparing their long telegraphed attack on Iran that could take place at any time, but is most likely to occur just after the November election. They should all resign and vow to leave their so-called "profession" because they failed to do their number one duty which is to inform the public of the truth.

All these crocodile tears by affluent "journalists" who didn't have the guts to risk anything at all personally when it was most important that they do so, have no business in that line of work. I say they should tell their self-absorbed tale of woe to the families who've lost kids in the war or to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis murdered since the illegal invasion was launched.

"Journalists" and everyone else in the media are still citizens even if their idiotic professional "standards" require an absurd faux "independence" and "nuetrality." Citizenship carries with it responsibilities that supercede whether or not it might hurt one's career or employment or the moronic "standards" of American "journalism." True patriotism requires the courage to speak out---not when it is easy but when it is hard, and when it means the rich and powerful will attack you for daring to tell the truth.

Go to Wikipedia and get the definition of the war crimes charges against the 24 top Nazis at Nuremberg. There were only four charges. You would have to strain to find one of the four that Bush and Company didn't violate in planning and executing the war against Iraq. To hell with impeachment--the top 24 people in the White House and the Pentagon who were part of the conspiracy to break the peace, should be on trial for War Crimes. I have yet to see anybody in the MSM or the New Media (like Josh here at TPM) do an analysis of the four Nuremberg charges and tell us that with what we know about the lead up to war, that Bush and his boys are not guilty of some if not all, of those charges. To the Bush defenders who say it was just bad intel--that's a possible defense for the culprits at a trial, but we do need a trial.

I was simply an avearage person in America during the build up to the invasion of Iraq pt. 2. It was quite difficult to feel like the only person in the world who did not see the connection between 9-11 and the invasion. It seemed like EVERYONE was gung ho on the idea. I voiced my opinion on the topic at various times and , as a result, almost landed myself in a couple fist fights. The mood of the overwhelming majority of America was ugly. I became really cynical and basically kept my thoughts to myself, unless I was around like minded people, which did not occur very often. The people were swept up in the hype just as much, if not more, than the media. That is one of the things that is so amazing about Obama. Even at the time the man combined intelligence with courage. It has been a long 7 years.

you should have read NetTrustCentral at the time you cited, truth was told there

I frankly have little regard for the tears of cowards

When it was suggested that you were either for us or against us, that material support was an act of terrorism, and that was weighed with telling the truth, derived from public source accounts, when you abdicate the truth in journalism for

"says she felt pressured by corporate executives at her previous network to support the Iraq War"

I wonder where was the pressure to tell the truth? Where was the pressure to look at the contradictions and assertions critically?

And for the Intel comminity, there was pressure to create a product, but where was the pressure to create a "factual product?"

The abdication of responsibility and the "eternal campaign" both militarily and political has done two things; wrecked the institutional credibility of all those involved who deviated from their core institutional charges: DOJ / Justice DOD / Pre-emptive war (not defense) Whitehouse / authoritarian abuse (undermined democracy not exporting it with a gun) Intel communities / purveyors of fallicy (oft repeated by the whitehouse as they point the finger) Journalist / Propoganda

You know my gut response?

No guts no glory, no damn integrity, and opposition to the war was not opposition to fighting or even opposition to terrorism of any ilk... it was a reasoned conclusion based on facts.

So if your tears are weakness and an indulgence in personal self-importance, please fvcking spare us your excess.

The soldiers wounded face a lifetime of tears, serious burns, broken dreams, as a consequence of your neglect and cowardice. The luckier died and do not carry that reminder and pain as survivors as the seriously wonded do. The carnage in Iraq and the deaths there as well and the wonded, the destroyed dreams and futures, well you aided and abtted that as assuredly as giving material support is defined.

There was those who stuck to the facts which are stubborn things.. facts are stubborn,

And then there were those who didn't allow facts to stand in the way of their opinions, who were aped by the weak and foolish, and brought dishonor and shame on the institutions of which they had the charge and the stewardship of protecting.

Damn all of you for being weak and stupid and violating your charge of stewardship.

damn you for your cowardice

Ms. Rosen, may I ask what I.F. Stone taught about using the most important inside sources of all--one's own judgment, one's own courage, the truth that is inside oneself?

Actually, not all news sources were servile bush-cheney mouthpieces. The Knight Ridder bureau in Washington—Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel- wrote insightful investigative pieces. They were on Bill Moyers's Buying The War episode shown on PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

From the website:
In "Buying the War" Bill Moyers and producer Kathleen Hughes document the reporting of Walcott, Landay and Strobel, the Knight Ridder team that burrowed deep into the intelligence agencies to try and determine whether there was any evidence for the Bush Administration's case for war. "Many of the things that were said about Iraq didn't make sense," says Walcott. "And that really prompts you to ask, 'Wait a minute. Is this true? Does everyone agree that this is true? Does anyone think this is not true?'"

Aside: Bill Moyers's show is THE most outstanding, interesting shows on TV.

"And yet....I was the only one who didn't believe Colin Powell's shameful presentation at the United Nations. Why? Not because I had special insider knowledge, but like I.F. Stone, I had found credible people who could dissect his speech and found it unconvincing and unpersuasive."

You were not the only one. I also saw it for the lie it was, and it was quite simple to do so, without having to talk to "credible people," "marginalized" or otherwise --

1. Powell made a big deal of emphasizing that the US was not against the Iraqi people -- only against the Saddam gov't. He repeatedly made that distinction in order to create a complete separation between the two.

2. Osama bin Laden released a video or tape which was translated as him "swearing solidarity with the Iraqi people".

3. Powell used that translated statement as _proof_ that bin Laden was connected to the Saddam gov't -- though that very translation refuted the claim Powell was making about it.

In fact, the "evidence" Powell presneted at the UN _refuted_ the claims Powell made about that evidence, and _refuted_ the "argument" based upon that evidence.
No "experts" needed: only eyes, ears, and critical faculties.

Millions more saw through the Bushit criminal enterpirse lies _from the very first of them_. All one had to do to see through Bushit's lies was to _listen_ to the changes in his voice when he told a lie: he sounded defensive, and his voice pitched upward to near-hysterical -- because he knew how far out on a limb he was going by flatly stating as fact that which he _knew then_ were lies.

From another perspective:

1. Bushit asserted that Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors into Iraq -- even though they were in Iraq at the time, and had been for at least 8 years.

2. Before the inspectors could finish their job -- which Bushit _didn't want happening, because he knew there were no WMDs_ -- he told them they'd better get out because the bombs were going to fall shortly.

3. Subsequently, he asserted that Saddam _threw the inspectors out_.

We didn't get a media which applied critical thinking to the facts, didn't point to even the most obvious of contradictions of fact, of lies. But we did get, sometimes inadvertently, the facts we needed to know what was happening. The "aluminum tubes" issue? The facts from the experts were reported -- in the back pages of such as the Washington Post. But they were they for those who looked beyond the front page.

No, you were not the only one. Millions of us knew _without_ the aid of a media terrified of its own shadow, or subservient to or greedy for the almighty dollar.

I'll accept Scott McLennen's apology before I'll accept ANY apology from ANYONE in the media: his job required that he spin, and to convey lies; the media, by contrast, took it on itself to spin, and to repeat the lies uncritiqued, as if known and established fact simply because they fell out of Bushit's mouth.

McLennen has an excuse, poor as it is. The media has NONE.