> But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar

> But reporting reasonable sounding information from an intelligence agency, even if that later turns out to be false, does not make the Washington Post a "liar" or a "state mouthpiece", as the grand parent claimed. Sure sounds like being a state mouthpiece to me. That's kind of what uncritically echoing what a murderous government tells you, while refusing to give the time of day to anti-war voices like a good little lapdog is. In regards to them being liars - kust read their reporting from the time, such as this article titled "Irrefutable" https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/irrefutable/e598b1be-a78a-4a42-8e1a-c336f7a217f4/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i... "AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Powell left no room to argue seriously that Iraq has accepted the Security Council's offer of a "final opportunity" to disarm." This reporting they did was a lie that helped sell a war under false pretences.