Howard Kurtz says before the Iraq War, Washington Post articles “questioning the evidence or rationale for war were frequently buried, minimized or spiked.”

I was working at The Washington Post at the time, and I took it upon myself to examine the paper’s performance in the run-up to war. It was not a pretty picture. …

Tom Ricks, who was the paper’s top military reporter, turned in a piece in the fall of 2002 that he titled “Doubts,” saying that senior Pentagon officials were resigned to an invasion but were reluctant and worried that the risks were being underestimated. An editor killed the story, saying it relied too heavily on retired military officials and outside experts — in other words, those with sufficient independence to question the rationale for war.

“There was an attitude among editors: Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?” Ricks said.

Howard Kurtz, CNN

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bkort Barry Kort

    It was obvious to me, even as a lay person with a modest understanding of the science of biological weapons, that the alarmist claims of WMD’s were bogus, unsupported by credible evidence or scientific analysis.

  • http://twitter.com/HTH_Plaza HTH Plaza
  • http://twitter.com/HTH_Plaza HTH Plaza
  • Kenneth Conway

    Kettle, thy name is “Kurtz.”

  • ADM

    “Tom Ricks, who was the paper’s top military reporter, turned in a piece in the fall of 2002 that he titled “Doubts”… An editor killed the story.”

    And then he wrote a book called “Fiasco.”

  • JTFloore

    is there some reason why howard took all this time to mention it? (editors obviously don’t have a corner on judgement.)

  • buckguy

    Kurtz may have been looking around, but he obviously was no profile in courage in talking about it. He’s the husband of rightwing flak and seems to comport himself in a manner not inconsistent with that.