I don't call it the Mouth Piece Media for nothing.

George W. Bush didn't see all the intelligence. He only saw or read what Cheney's handlers passed on to him (and insisted that he read). If you like, you can interpret that Bush is disappointed in the intelligence he saw himself, knowing from after-the-fact reporting that he didn't see all of it until after the war was going poorly.

That could be a sign of regret for choosing to follow the Cheney/Rove advice. I get the sense that Bush is just shell-shocked at what an abject failure he has been. But there is no way anybody in his position could ever come out and say, "Gee, the last 8 years have been a waste of my and everyone else's time, and now I can see that I've dug this nation the deepest hole any single man has ever dug."

As everyone knows, Bush is a simpleton who was elected at a time of unmitigated prosperity where just enough people thought that electing a simpleton to be their leader was OK. He is not the evil here, he is just the stooge, and he seems to be acknowledging that with his statements.

I don't recall a president giving such a dour self-assessment of his own performance Since Johnson decided against another term. Of course, although Johnson accelerated another idiotic war, there was no economic meltdown he had to atone for.

Johnson could see his failure after four years. Bush couldn't see it until it culminated in unmitigated paralysis after nearly 8 years of idiocy, with even his own party-faithful holding their noses in his presence.

I don't think this is the best example of msm complicity. Bush's regret comes through loud and clear. And he is right in that it was the complicity of Dems and Reps in congress, and most of all the "liberal" Blair and various Middle Eastern interests that allowed his handlers to continue on the war path without much resistance. Remember when only one US representative voted against the war bill in 2002? Barbara Lee?

The label "Mainstream Media" is disingenuous. Although it is "mainstream" in that most people get their info through their stream, everyone knows the content is driven by a combination of corporate goals and ad revenue. Ad revenue is generated by giving the viewers what they want. Why give it such a legitimate label? "CAM" for "Corporate Ad-driven Media" would be more appropriate if you need an acronym.

MSM has become a throw-away term used by parties of all political persuasion. Look at how Sarah Palin was able to use it to defend her poor performance. The term has come to imply conspiracy theorism and ought to fall into disuse.

You'll see Fox change their tune as soon as their ad-revenue tumbles, and not until then. That will coincide with Roger Ailes losing his job.

Raise your glass to all those internet bloggers that don't have any ad revenue to support their blogging.

What a good point:main stream media was complicit in the lie(s),so will keep covering it up. When I was very young, I didn't like newspapers, saying "I'll wait until the history is sorted out"....but, being much much older, I know that a)much history is written using the same bad articles as "source material" and b)there was no internet then, but there is now, and lots of independent media (altho way back, I did read "IFStone's Weekly".

This all reminds of the quote: "It's very hard to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it."

Swap out the word understand for report and it works just as well.

Why have none of the corporate media reported or commented on the Pentagon propaganda program with military analysts on their own networks (still)?

Why after six years at war have most Americans never seen any real footage of what is happening?

Have you ever seen any reporting on mountaintop removal mining?

News programming is controlled by corporations that have a vested interest in NOT reporting actual news.

Countdown w/KO just brought up this interview and why they didn't listen to the good intel.

Bravo.

Chris Hayes of The Nation magazine just killed Bush's excuse about the "Bad Intel" on a segment called WMD-Do Over on Countdown.

The mainstream media make money for their corporate owners by packaging the news in a way that is most likely to increase the number of readers/viewers. What they do has nothing to do with fairness, truth, journalistic integrity or standards. What it does have to do with is competing in a popularity contest called the Nielsen Ratings. Even those shows that we tend to be happy with such as MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow shows are only aired because the corporate heads at GE/NBC noticed a shift in political attitudes in the revered 25-54 age group that they could cash in on.
At least FoxNews' biased, sensationalistic, ill written and frequently, woefully wrong reporting is true to it's unstated but obvious goal of being the right wing's go to spot for propaganda.
Unfortunately, as surly as Pepe' Le Peu retains a noxious ambiance, the "L" label has stuck to the mainstream media in the eyes of the general public. At least, thanks to GWB's henchmen stinkin' up the political landscape, the "L" label no longer has the negative aura that it did just a few years back.

I think it's more nefarious than that. If the viewpoint of the govt and the richest few didn't gain the corporate media more $$$, they'd do it anyway. Because they're infiltrated by them. They're losing money right now, but they're still doing it. They're not in it for the money, they're in it for the propaganda. It's their job to "manufacture consent" for the govt and the richest few and corporations. Making $$$ is secondary.

Wilburrr... ~ bloodthirsty and sociopath go together likka Horse and carriage...

This new congress must make an attempt at having hearings on the role of the media and it's complicit nature (to date). Pelosi, Reid and the rest have not exactly showed any engery at the prospect of exposing and correcting the ills of the Bush Administration. The onset of this new congress and this new Obama Administration appears to be more the same.
To ignore and placate the media for its Bush era misdeeds is an ennormous mistake. Addressing the issue however is distasteful to politicians.
It is imperative to not allow the concept of the free press to be remain in the hands of corporate and political interests. It also a reality that politicians are gutless and have no real interest in reclaiming Americas "freedom of the press" heritage and restoring its validity.

It is appalling that the so-called media never asked the hard questions. What was so hard about stating that there were almost daily interviews with the IAEC about their searches in Iraq. There was on film the IAEC conducting searches. There was in the news media efforts by the IAEC telling Bush to be patient. Where did Bush get that crap about Saddam not allowing the IAEC in to search for wmds?