Glad to see there is still interest in the wrong doings. There is still a great deal more to investigate.

Didn't one of the 9-11 Commissioners when asked about jumping from Afgh. war to Iraq state they had to protect Isreal?

Didn't the media cut Dan Rather off for several reasons, especially when he was reporting on 9-11 about the George Washington bridge van?

It is nice to see a portion of a major news network finally coming around to admitting that they were complicit (even if they pointed fingers at others more than thmeselves)in the selling of the war to the country. That they were cowards in the face of the Bush administration and the bullying tactics of the right.
I would like to see MSNBC and other networks do more than just air programs like this (there was little to nothing that was new in it). I would like them to admit they were a major part of the problem (not from the on-air people, but from the executives who were editorializing by limiting the coverage that was possible). I would like them to make a promise to their veiwers that they will not take the low road on such issues in the future. I would like to see them ask for criminal charges (where they can be found) against administrative officials. I would like to see them hammer away at the other networks until they come clean on their complicit actions to the war(s).
I rarely anymore watch the main newscasts on the major networks (nor read the NYT/Washington Post), because since 9-11 I have felt they were mostly sell-outs to the political establishment. TRMS is better but it still provides too much comfort to the Dems. I would like to be able to trust the networks again, but it will not likely be for a long time, because they have so soiled their reputations with me that it will be hard to win back my trust.

David, overall I agree with your assessment.

However, I have to take exception to the suggestion that Hubris portrayed this as simply the Bush regime's war. The video accurately depicted Senators Clinton and Kerry voting in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

I found it troubling that Tom Daschle, in real time, expressed doubts about the administration's case for war yet went ahead and voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution anyway--an act that may be more reflective of political cowardice rather than willful complicity in the deception.

Also, caution should be applied to avoid attributing full knowledge of the deception to members of Congress, who may themselves have been deceived.

I, too, watched the exchange between Norm Solomon and Col Wilkerson on Democracy Now, after which I was still not convinced that there is no validity in Wilkerson's claim that he and Powell were, themselves, deceived, though I say that with the caveat that Wilkerson's and Powell's post event construct is self-serving.

The one point that I believe should be stressed is the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting study for the week before and week after Powell's UN address. Of the 393 "experts" appearing on four major networks (CBS, NBC, ABC & PBS), only 3 were anti-war--this at a time when 61% of the American people favored diplomacy and inspections over war.

Finally, while there was no doubt some level of complicity as well as acquiescence amongst Congressional Democrats, the truly sad moment came in 2009 when the Obama administration adopted the sophistry of "looking forward, instead of back" to prevent legal accountability on the part of those highly placed former officials who were allegedly complicit in war crimes.

I went in search of past history to back up my thoughts on that issue:

http://www.commondreams..../headlines04/0329-11.htm

Yes, all the Dems that were in office at the time supported the war because they had already been heavily vetted by AIPAC before taking office, and in order to stay in office.

PeasantParty @4 wrote:

Yes, all the Dems that were in office at the time supported the war...

Not true. A number of Democrats, like Dennis Kucinich and Robert Byrd were outspoken in their opposition to the war.

Most of the mainstreet media was to blame at the time for bending over backwards to appease the Bush admin. We were marching and protesting against this war in Southern California but the media was absent. The only media voices protesting this action were some radio personalities like Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy. We were stunned that this was happening. In my mind, Bush, Cheney & Co. are mass murderers. I believe that historians will eventually conclude the same.

Many more Democrats voted against authorization to attack Iraq. In fact, 126 Ds in the House, 1 Independent (Sanders) and 6 Republicans voted against. In the Senate, 21 Ds, 1 Independent (Jeffords) and 6 Republicans voted against.

More details here.

Not enough Ds voted against, for my taste, but let's not rewrite history, PeasantParty. Thanks!

I haven't read this article yet but I was disappointed with Hubris. The documents shown were illegible and therefore ineffective. Much more hubris could have been presented. A cornucopia of hubris to choose from for the picking if you look.

I've always wanted to send Rachel Maddow a cheerleader's skirt and some blue pom-poms, all adorned with the Obama O, because she's been Obama's and the Democratic Party's most ardent and faithful cheerleader.

And what do you expect from the Israel Party? Nobody becomes a significant member of Congress without swearing fealty to Zion, especially Democrats.

I was disappointed that this documentary by MSNBC and Rachel Maddow provided a very shallow level of investigative journalism. No analysis of possible motives for this display of hubris or even a mention of Oil. Halliburton and the secret energy meetings Cheney held could have been discussed. Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill also had some revealing things to say about the Bush Administrations desires for Iraq from early on in their presidency. None of this was mentioned.

Oh and 9/11 was most obviously an inside job and that was not confronted either. Never Forget!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
http://rememberbuilding7...-facts-about-building-7/
http://911blogger.com/ne...6/facts-speak-themselves
http://www.AE911Truth.org

Isokoff is a conspiracy theorist to the extreme. A few qoutes from other corrupt people is his evidence? Over the top redated documents, a bogus FBI agent, Valarie Plume, a few selcted and spliced interviews (shameful)???? It was in poor taste right from the onset. I'm a dem and liberal and you should all be ashamed. Nothing more then a conspiracy theory. Isakoff the Consipracy Theorist.

To see the Hubris of the movement against Saddam Hussein, one need only examine the PNAC documents. This group had been advocating the removal of Saddam for a long time before Bush II took the oath of office and brought the majority of PNAC signatories with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...the_New_American_Century

Don't candy coat this shit, the PNAC signatories had held numerous posts in our State Dept, Security and military bureaucracies for a long time. They were well aware of confidential weapons inspection reports that showed Saddam had dismantled his WMD programs post '91. They KNEW the Iraqi regime was the most contained regime in the world. They KNEW there was no REAL justification for invading Iraq.

And yes, in the face of so much contradicting intelligence reports, far too many politicians acquiesced when it came time to choose. And they chose political fealty over honest and our government enabled war crimes in our name.

Here is your list of deceivers and war criminals:
http://www.publiceye.org/pnac_chart/pnac.html

And it shoehorns quite nicely with the leaders of the modern American conservative movement.

Patrick Knowlton @11,

Don't know if you're a dem or liberal but you sure sound like a poseur. Whoever you are, you're using the standard go-to non-argument of Faux News as your sole rebuttal here. Absolutely nothing of substance in your comment. Just more school yard dismissal cuz you don't like the messenger and/or the message.

And please explain to me when conspiracy theory got a bad name. Was it when we overthrew the Shah? The Bay of Pigs? The Gulf of Tonkin? Helped overthrow Arbenz? Helped overthrow Allende? Tried to overthrow Chavez? Iran-Contra? This latest example from MSNBC is not something to be dismissed for whatever your undisclosed reasons might be. It is something tO be recognized as our unconstitutional, illegal, immoral business as usual. You know, the business of empire.

It is interesting how popular culture and ideologues dismiss any and all claims that dispute the official government (or corporate) version of events with the words "conspiracy theory."

In science, the word "theory," refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

I wonder whether Patrick Knowlton @11 realized that by assigning the words "conspiracy theory" to Hubris, he had elevated that work from a mere hypothesis to "a well-substantiated explanation" of the deceptions that led to our unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Questions remain: 1) So, since US leadership knew WPM not an issue in Iraq, why did US leadership pursue the invasion? Was it oil (as many Iraqis believed)? Was it protection of Israel? Why did they do it? 2) Seems to me that few folks are looking into what Robin Cook (former foreign minister of UK ) knew and believed in so strongly that he would resign from government rather than go along with Tony Blair and the US to invade Iraq. What did Robin Cook know and how did he know it?

Patrick Knowlton trolled @ 11:

I'm a dem and liberal and you should all be ashamed.

Yes. I'm sure you are. Also, as it turns out, I'm the King of Siam!

But thanks for your "concern" and watching out for the well-being of war criminals. They certainly thank you too.

King of Siam! Hard to beat that.

I'm not a conspiratist, but a realist.

Bldg 7 fell linearly at a rate = g. There's only 1 way that can happen.

Case closed; well, in the future it will be - until then the fascists continue their games.

I missed the rest of the documentary (by 'flipping') after Rachel Maddow carefully showed closeup video of the supposed dreaded chemical weapons labs on wheels and 'Curveball' explaining that he just hated Saddam and lied, but then never explained what they were really for!

Launching weather balloons for artillery spotting, with hydrogen gas generators.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/iraq/thatcher.html
Note the date of the article - FEB. 28, 2003

This doc surely brushed over the culpability of MSNBC. I'm pretty sure Donahue was their highest rated show at the time he got axed - for daring to ask tough questions rather than donning pom poms.

MSNBC, after canning Phil, then hired far right creep Michael (Weiner) Savage to take his place.

Oh, and I believe they later terminated Ashleigh Banfield for hinting they had been in the bag for the war.

All that said this was a good start, the Irag bogus war and the media's role in facilitating it has to be exposed.