"Buying the War" came cheap

I watched Bill Moyer's "Buying the War" for the second time today. My reaction was the same as it was during the first viewing: more proof of "lemming journalism," in which reporters follow the leader in a mad rush to keep up. It was great to see The New York Times take it on the chin. Moyers proved how easy it is to leash the press. I hope he reads "Philip's Code" because that is what the book is about. What other stories have the Times and other media fed into the news chain where they were accepted without question? For example, try to fathom the ramifications of limiting "choice" to one subject.
Still, I had the feeling Moyers set out not to find the truth, but to marshal enough facts to prove his point. I have, however, a question. Why didn't the eve of battle statement issued to our military dwell on WMDs? I am looking at the statement as I type. WMDs are mentioned only in the past tense. The crimes of Saddam are listed. Remember, the invasion was called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not Find Those WMDs..
Perhaps the news media's hesitation to highlight Saddam's brutal reign has to do with the pacts news organizations made with him that allowed access to some parts of Iraq in exchange for not reporting about horrors taking place in others. It's in "Embedded." I wish Moyers had included that fact.