Tom Ricks of the Washington Post has written a book, Fiasco, on the missteps that the United States committed in Iraq. Or at least, those he finds to be significant. But even so, the contrast between what's in the book, including things that Ricks must have known at the time, vs. what he was actually writing at the time for the Post, has come in for repeated criticism. So, I'm intrigued to see, via Brad DeLong, that he now has a response:

KURTZ: Including the media. In fact, you write, quote, in the run-up to the war, quote, "The media didn't delve deeply enough into the issues surrounding war, especially the threat of Iraq and the cost of occupying and remaking the country. We're seeing those costs right now." Why didn't the media delve more deeply? Was there a certain level of intimidation?

RICKS: I don't think it was so much as intimidation as partly a lack of information, credible information. Congress didn't hold hearings in which credible information was presented that said, no, the administration's case is wrong.

So apparently, credible information from other parties, such as Hans Blix, head of the UN Inspectors mission (who immediately followed up Colin Powell's much-touted address to the Security Council, and shredded it) or Mohammed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (which repeatedly debunked ludicrous claims from Dubya's crew about active nuclear weapons programs), is still not worthy of much attention from Ricks or the rest of the legitimate press. El-Baradei is mentioned in Fiasco twice in passing, once to acknowledge his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize; so far as I can tell, Blix's name does not appear once in the book.

Good to know.

And anyway, Ricks can now say that there were no WMDs. There have been U.S. government reports saying so since.