It's important that AP drew attention to the report, but there's a lot missing that others covered. First off, the database used for the report is available to the public (linked below) As Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith noted in their article announcing the report, "False Pretenses," "Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq. "Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence. "Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?" The database was noted by John Cushman of the NYT in "Web Site Assembles U.S. Prewar Claims "(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/washington/23database.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) AFP has a more stylish, but also more partisan piece here: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYM8h8wNn4ccjLCLy7N8cyPwUcUA, "Truth was first US casualty in Iraq war: study," which includes this derisive comment by White House spokeswoman Dana Perino: I hardly think that the study is worth spending time on," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "As you'll remember, we were part of a broad coalition of countries that deposed the dictator based on a collective understanding of the intelligence." As Ari Melber notes at the Nation's campaign blog in writing about the study, "Now the Campaign for America's Future is launching a "reality check" campaign to correct falsehoods in the address. They just posted a prebuttal video on YouTube. The idea, apparently, is that we shouldn't have to wait five years to correct lies from the President of the United States." See: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=274275 (Fighting "State of the Union" Deception) MTV reorted on the pattern of the lies: "The report is accompanied by a bar graph that Carpinelli said shows how the false statements reached their peak in the months prior to the March 2003 launch of the Iraq war and how they tapered off soon after." It also reported on the reaction of the political right on the blogosphere and asked the center for its reaction. See: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1580119/20080123/index.jhtml (Bush Administration Lied 935 Times About Iraq Before Invasion: statements about weapons of mass destruction and more by Gil Kaufman) Dan Froomkin writing for the Washington Post provides the context for why he thinks the report is not old news, although five years in coming: " For one, the war goes on. For another, government credibility remains severely damaged. And then there's the fact that the president has never really been held to account for his repeated falsehoods." (see below "