people all deserve their credit but the most damming thing in that entire piece is the great walter pinkusl things for "the washington post," was a skeptic of the war and he averaged page a-18 for his wonderful coverage. well, as you said, all of the whiz bang, goalie gee, raw, raw stuff was on the front page of the "new york times" and "the washington post," by and large. >> by the way, it was only in the days after we realized there was no nuclear weapons or any kind of wmd in iraq after the invasion that people like pinkus and dana milbank said, wait a minute, all along we should have done this. >> for a year prior to the invasion, jonathan, warren, and others were writing pieces very critical. >> all getting in the paper? >> well, not all. some chains weren't covering that stuff. ann walter and dana and others at "the washington post" in the run-up were coming up with really good stories. the new york sometimes would say suddam hussein has aluminum tubes used for nuclear bombs. then a few days later, the experts in the government discount this. that wasn't put on page a-1. it was put o