"In recent months, US news organizations have rushed to expose the Bush administration's pre-war failings on Iraq," notes Michael Massing. "Watching and reading all this," he says, "one is tempted to ask, where were you all before the war? Why didn't we learn more about these deceptions and concealments in the months when the administration was pressing its case for regime change -- when, in short, it might have made a difference? Some maintain that the many analysts who've spoken out since the end of the war were mute before it. But that's not true. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the 'intelligence community' was rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iraq. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it." Massing's examination of the media's role echoes a reader's complaint several months ago to the Washington Post: "Why shouldn't Bush cling to dubious allegations [3]? He gets to repeat them over and over in prime time in front of a huge national audience and your analysis of their truthfulness is tucked away on page 13. No wonder such a large percentage of Americans believe that Hussein was directly tied to 9/11."