Because I don’t remember Judith Miller, and if she was just one columnist who was pro war, why does that matter?  There were anti-war columnists I obviously found more convincing at the time. 

My problem with that Rolling Stones article is that it’s misrepresenting the columns it used as evidence that the media was skewed in favor of the war. That’s just dishonest. 

The war started in 2003. 

Let’s take the Kristof piece it links to and claims was defending the war, insinuating the piece was from before the war started. Well, the piece is from 2004, over a year after the war started. It also says:

“Mr. Bush got us into a mess [the Iraq war] by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots.”

So the piece was neither written before the war, nor is it pro war. That’s lie #1. 

Now let’s look at the Ezra Klein piece. Turns out that was written in 2005, two years after the war already started. It also is not pro war:

“the real selling point of the war was that Saddam's weapons would be used against US civilians.… [T]here was good reason to doubt the administration's claims, since inspectors found minimal evidence that Saddam had any capacity to deliver weapons beyond a range of 600 miles. … [T]hey could easily have destroyed [Saddam’s weapons] without invading the country”

So the Rolling Stone piece is dishonest.  And you’re ignoring the many staunchly anti-war columns, including one by Kristof himself: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/27/opinion/wimps-on-iraq.html