There are legitimate questions about the massive Rolling Stone investigation (11/19/14) into rape and sexual assault at the University of Virginia. After several critical stories about the magazine’s apparent failure to verify some details about the main account in the piece, the magazine has posted an editor’s note acknowledging there “now appear to be discrepancies” in the narrative provided by “Jackie,” the accuser whose story helps frame the magazine’s investigation of the university.
There are reporters at outlets like the Washington Post (12/5/14) who raised real questions about the story. And then are also those like National Review editor Rich Lowry, who went on ABC‘s This Week (12/7/14) to give viewers a few words about journalistic accountability:
Well, when something is so explosive, you have to be certain it’s right. And Rolling Stone didn’t do basic factchecking here, I believe because they had an agenda to portray U VA as this bastion of white male privilege where, basically, rapists rule the social life. And the damage will never be undone.
That’s sound advice, and certainly obvious: Factcheck stories, especially the explosive ones. But this is coming from a guy who was one of the most vocal media proponents of the completely false argument that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda.
Shortly before the invasion of Iraq, on the CBS program Face the Nation (2/23/03), Lowry declared:
There is a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There is no division in the US government about this anymore. Everyone agrees there’s 10 years’ worth of contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
That was wrong, of course, and you didn’t need hindsight to know so; there were plenty of people who challenged this falsehood in real time.
It’s helpful that Lowry brought up white male privilege on ABC. It’s hard to know what else you might call a system that enables people like Lowry to continue to appear on television as some sort of expert. Not everyone gets to be so lucky.
Let history reflect that Bush began the 2003 invasion of Iraq because the inspections were working relatively well but were finding no WMD. As these facts on the ground eroded the rationale for war, Bush panicked and told the inspectors to get out because the attack would start in 3 days. Bush did this unilaterally and without UN approval.
So, yes, Bush is guilty of war crimes. But this version I cited is 100% true and ought to be inscribed for future reference, though the mainstream media won’t be doing the inscribing anytime soon.