"Admittedly, this is beyond proof, but my lifetime observation of the NYT and Washington Post is that that they are quite dovish. But on this dubious enterprise, there was a green light."
You are wrong. NYT and WaPost were totally and loudly against the Iraq war. Judith Miller and David Brooks were the only NYT reporters in support. And guess what? They repudiated and then got rid of Miller. Down to one. This is my hometown paper. I follow it closely.
Thomas Freidman publicized and backed the Saudi peace plan. He is hated by people who care about Israel.
"I used to read The New Republic a lot, considering it a liberal magazine and joyously reading occasional harsh critiques of liberal interest. Now, I suppose it is regarded more as Neocon."
NR has come out strongly against the Iraq war for quite some time. It apologized for its initial support as early as 6/04. It is not Neocon at all. Peretz is the exception but it is not the official position of the magazine. Peretz publishes these views elsewhere not in NR.
If anything the leftist Jewish supporters of Iraq war, like the non-Jewish Christopher Hitchens model, fall into the same group that supported the US mission in Bosnia and Kosovo -- fight crimes against humanity.
The truth is the entire premise is mistaken although beloved by those who tout the undue influence of Israel, AIPAC and dual loyalty of US Jews.
Iraq was not seen by Israel, neither the left nor right, as the enemy. Iraq was stable as far as Israel was concerned. Israelis dreaded the Iraq war since they believed they might be hit by WMD if the US stirred them up. All Israelis were issued gas masks in the run up. Israelis saw the nuclear ambitious Iran as the much more dangerous enemy. And they are correct as we are now seeing. Iran also backs three arch enemy terrorist groups - Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah.
So this whole premise is wrong.
I agonized over the expression "green light."
I have not reviewed the editorials or Friedman's columns, although I may do so (not because of this thread....I have been wanting to take a close look back.)
My recollection is strongly contrary to your statement that the NYT and WP were "totally and loudly against the war." My recollection is that they went along, caveats notwithstanding. This was important to me at the time, because I was struggling with where ~I~ stood. I have no patience with U.N. talk, but I feared that this war would go exactly as it has. I was influenced when the dovish media did not strongly oppose it. Sure, Friedman was ducking and dodging as it got close,but none of this seemed to me to be anywhere near a red light (if I have overstated in calling it "green.") And let's not confuse the HINDsight at the NYT and WP with what they said before we pulled the trigger.
I figured if such reluctant warriors as the NYT and WP were not shoting "NO," the case must be pretty strong.
(I don't necessarily think it is fair to put up posts with only one's opinions and recollections and demand that someone else cite sources, but if you have dates and quotes handly I would be happy to see them.)