Shooter, was it?: "If Global Warming is true by virtue of a consensus of scientists, then WMDs were present by virtue of a consensus of politicians." [Side note: Dude, aren't you even a little ashamed of your idiotic alias in the wake of the latest U.S. gun massacre?]

I suspect the scientific and academic world is a tad more democratic than U.S. war policy in 2002-03. Peer-reviewed literature, and all that. As opposed to a handful of neocons making up crap to justify their case for war; others thinking there must be things they can't tell us and never dreaming a U.S. president would lie to start a war; and the U.S. corporate media not only refusing to call b.s., but joining in to vilify and silence dissent.

In the summer of '64, no one knew the truth about what if anything really happened in the darkness of the Tonkin Gulf. This time around, the dishonest case for going to war over "an al-Qaeda terrorist training camp in a part of Iraq not under Saddam's control" (etc.) was laid out for the world to see; but the corporate media chose not to see it.

Paul Krugman had the classic corporate media headline: "White House says world is flat; some Democrats disagree." But don't journalists have SOME obligation to move beyond their typical "he said she said and now it's on to celebrities" and call b.s. (loudly) on the most blatant lies? If they have no such obligation, then they ARE merely stenographers.

Then there is Fox. My favorite Faux Fact was when a half-million people marched against the looming invasion in NY early 2002 (plus many more in London, Rome, etc.); and the worthies at Faux characterized the marchers as "a few hippies and college professors."

HCoppola, thanks for the heads-up. Here's what I just posted in response:

"Two questions that ought to have been asked of Bush-Cheney:

1. Did Powell's "presentation" at the U.N. constitute your entire case for war? (In other words, is that all you've got?); and

2. If there really is "an al-Qaeda training camp in a part of Iraq not under Saddam's control," then why on earth are you not attacking said camp instead of holding up photos of it at the U.N.? (Is your case for occupying Iraq really more important than stopping "the terrorists" responsible for 9/11?)

If the selling of the Iraq war really was your best good-faith effort at journalism, the[n] clearly many if not all of you need to step down and let those of us who are a bit less dim (albeit less well-connected) do your jobs for you. Because five years later a whole lot of mostly innocent people are dead not just in Iraq but in Bali, Madrid, London, etc.; and Osama bin-Forgotten by a corrupt administration with your help."

I just posted more questions real journalists should've asked way back when.

"More questions that might have been helpful had they been put to Bush-Cheney in early 2003:

1. Beyond the scary but vague talk of mushroom clouds, Cheney has flatly asserted (Meet the Press 03/16/03) that Saddam has a "reconstituted nuclear weapon." Do you stand by that claim?

2. Even if your claims about Iraqi WMD and ties to al-Qaeda are true, is it really your considered judgment that invading Iraq now is so urgent that the U.S. must curtail the hunt for bin-Laden?

3. If the U.S. military really can, as you put it, walk and chew gum at the same time, then when might we look forward to the capture of bin-Laden and the terrorists responsible for 9/11?

Finally, a question for you, Mr. Knoller. In the selling of the Iraq Occupation, were American corporate media employees not allowed to practice good journalism, or has the meaning of that phrase simply been forgotten, as [have] bin-Laden and al-Qaeda?"

Funny you'd mention Stephen Colbert, jojo++. Here is my last reply to CBS's in answer to CBS:

"Of course, these questions also should have been asked:

1. On the off-chance the Judeo-Christian occupying army is NOT "greeted as liberators" by the Arabs, what is your strategy?

2. Our investigation indicates your claims of uranium from Africa (aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, reconstituted nuclear weapons, 45-minute delivery systems, etc.) are, um, not true. Your comment?

[awkward pause] Oh yeah, the U.S. corporate media doesn't do its own investigating. Not of Bush-Cheney, anyway. You rely solely on what they tell you. They tell you what to report, and you write it down, just as Stephen Colbert described."