
The New York Times says that UN Ambassador-nominee Samantha Power "criticized the American invasion of Iraq because it lacked the council's stamp, among other reasons." But what did Power actually say about the Iraq War before it happened?
The national media watch group

The New York Times says that UN Ambassador-nominee Samantha Power "criticized the American invasion of Iraq because it lacked the council's stamp, among other reasons." But what did Power actually say about the Iraq War before it happened?

How many Iraqis died in the Iraq War? Public responses to that question are disheartening because they reflect a very distorted public perception of the war. But they are indicative of an even bigger problem: corporate media's inadequate coverage of the human costs of U.S.-led wars.

Benghazi isn't the scandal that Obama's critics make it out to be, the Washington Post's Jackson Diehl writes. But the real point of his column is to protect the legacy of the Bush White House's Iraq claims.

The pundits' message on Barack Obama's talk of a "red line" on Syria is that they are concerned about the credibility of the president's threats of violence–much more so than about the credibility of his evidence.

When someone says they "broke" with George W. Bush over the Iraq War, you might be inclined to think that they did that sometime before 2006 or so, which is about when Bush strategist-turned-TV pundit Matthew Dowd is saying he left.

O'Reilly was outraged by Sirota's point that the government's response would be very different–more costly, potentially more violent–if the perpetrators fit a certain profile. This is ironic, because O'Reilly had, the night of the attacks, basically made Sirota's point.

The headline on a story by Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi is "On Iraq, Journalists Didn't Fail. They Just Didn’t Succeed." To make that case, though, he has to redefine "failure" so far down that it's hardly possible to avoid failing.
Thanks to the Washington Post, we're still reading lies about the Iraq War ten years later.

Ten years ago, a front-page New York Times story helped mislead us into war with the idea that Iraq was trying to procure special aluminum tubes for its nuclear weapons program. Last night, one of the PBS NewsHour's two expert journalists to look back on Iraq was the guy who co-authored that piece.

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough's commentary looking back at the Iraq War took aim at some politicians and media outlets who were supportive of removing Saddam Hussein from power. But somehow he forgot to include his own words.

Howard Fineman–formerly at Newsweek, now at Huffington Post–tries to come to terms with his Iraq War failures, seemingly with good intentions. But he falls short of addressing a record that shows a remarkable level of enthusiasm for the job of advocating for Bush's "eyes-on-the-prize decisiveness."

Ten years ago, a major American magazine published a bombshell report about the non-existence of Iraq's WMDs. But it was hardly noticed by a corporate press corps too busy hyping the threat from those non-existent weapons.