So, Good evening. It's Friday, June 30th. Welcome to a new episode of

System Update. Our live nightly show that airs every Monday through Friday at 7 PM Eastern exclusively

here on Rumbull, the free speech alternative to YouTube.

Tonight, back in 2002 and 2003, the debate over whether to invade the war in Iraq was marked by all sorts of dissent repression techniques

The marginalization of critics was so extreme that even the corporate outlets responsible for them were forced to issue

mea culpa's. In 2004, the New York Times issued a now notorious editor's note apologizing

for their one-sided coverage over the debate over the weather to invade Iraq

fueled by an uncritical acceptance of unverified claims

from the US intelligence community.

Quote, looking back to the paper of record, we which we had been more aggressive in

re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged or failed to emerge. Also in 2004 the

Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz published a skating critique

of his own papers one-sided coverage of Iraq

entitled, quote, the post on WMDs, an inside story,

pre-war articles questioning threat often didn't make the front page.

Kurtz wrote, quote, days before the Iraq war began, veteran Washington Post reporter

Walter Pinkis put together a story questioning whether the Bush administration had proof that

Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction.

But he ran into resistance from the paper's editors and his piece ran only after assistant

managing editor Bob Woodward who was researching a book about

the drive toward war, quote, helped sell the story, Pinkers recalled.

Without him, it would have been a tough time getting into the paper.

...