David Gregory said that there was a consensus on the threat

[chieftain]

that Saddam presented the world due to WMD's. Of course there was no such consensus. There may have been a consensus that Iraq had certain chemical and biological WMD's. There was no such consensus on the state of their nuclear development. There was no such consensus on an Iraqi/Al-Quaida working relationship. And there was absolutely no such consensus that Hussein presented an imminent threat to the US. I bring this up to provide some context to Gregory and other corporate media flacks refusing to acknowledge their shared culpability for the fraudulent run up to the war. As important as McClellan's book is to show the untruthful hubris of the Bush Regime, there is an equally damning theme of news medias' dereliction of duty. We should never let the Gregorys and Russerts avoid their involvement in the biggest foreign policy blunder in history.

[grassfed]

1. there was consensus that saying this saved your job

[City Lights]

2. The David Gregory who dances with Rove is full of shit.

Methinks he doth protest too much.

[kevinmc]

3. There sure wasn't a consensus to invade Iraq though .......

most of those countries didn't see it as a threat worth going to war over. If Bush would have let the UN Inspectors finish the job they would have shown that their consensus was wrong and we wouldn't have killed all those people.

[blm]

4. He's right - Bill Clinton made sure to sell Bush's claim about Iraq, concurring with Bush's decision

to invade REPEATEDLY and very PUBLICALLY, and was especially crucial in selling the war to DC lawmakers who BELIEVED Bill's claim to have seen the evidence necessary when HE was president.

I believe Clinton lied and exaggerated along with Bush because he was always on the same page with Bush's agenda there.

[mmonk]

5. Nope, there wasn't.

Ask Baradei or Blix.

[kentuck]

6. There was a consensus at MSNBC...

Remember that they fired Phil Donahue and then they had the reporter that was riding on the APV that died of "natural causes" while reporting...a young guy...his name escapes me at the moment unfortunately. MSNBC was very pro-war and why shouldn't they be? They were going to make a lot of money off it as part of GE, one of the largest Defense constractors.

[Poiuyt]

7. Did other countries have intelligence in Iraq?

Or were they following Bush because of Bush's strong PR? Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld chose to use evidence from Chalibi who, of course, had an ulterior motive for wanting us to invade. Were other countries just relying on the US for their information?