The New York Times Critiques it's own coverage of Iraq: "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all." Recommendation to New York Times. When a reporter screws up badly, you fire them (remember?) and even in that case (you DO remember don't you?) higher ups "resigned to persue other interest". So, if indeed, you think you contributed to the Iraqi war, which you now think should have never been started, then SURELY this is an appropriate time to fire someone. If on the other hand this is just leftist politics as usual, no one will be fired, demoted or even reprimanded. And I'd guess in about a year you will be claiming clairvoyance for those earlier article when WMD are found, in abundance. Your mission right now as is the case with so many others, and as is so transparent, is to defeat George Bush. Accuracy in reporting is the last thing on your mind.