Barnett acts as if it is the role of journalists was to stop the war.
The questions were asked. They (particularly Helen Thomas) didn't like the answers, but they had no firm basis on which to question them outside of innuendo and the presumption of guilt. There's only so much that can be told to reporters that doesn't tip off those opposing U.S. forces on the battlefield.
"I think American journalism generally agrees its own press was supine, and it is fair to say that Hollywood, perhaps a little belatedly, is picking up the baton."
Funny how the reporter couldn't find an American journalist to say that.
What’s worse is that even before Bush became president, many in the media were only too happy to present Hussein as a genuine threat—especially if it got Monica off the front page. From the Clinton era bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan to the Impeachment-Eve bombing of Iraq, the media was more than willing to accomadate Clinton’s claims of an immediate threat.
Heck, two days after Bush’s Inauguration, the NY Times with Bill Cohen (Clinton’s Sec. of Defense) were warning the incoming administration of Saddam and his reconstitution of WMDs. Contrary to Clinton’s own claims that he detroyed much of Saddam’s capabilities, Cohen was writing of new facilities being constructed and movement that suggested new weapons development.
It was this same media that reported on the sanctuary being offered to UBL by Saddam, with Clinton’s own DOJ unveiling a sealed indictment of UBL, for among other things—working cooperatively with the government of Iraq. Not only did the media not challenge any of these assertions, they were carried and authored by many of their journalists. Perhaps the media couldn’t go too much out on a limb because they were some of the sources that contributed to these stories.