I think the war was heavily covered, not only during its first few months (remember that deck of cards showing the most wanted?).
Covered?
If by "covered" you mean "shamelessly promoted and never critically examined in the build up and early stages" you'd be correct.
The "deck of cards" thing was essentially a PR stunt that helped sell the thing.
Spud's point.
The drumbeat continued as the press pummeled Bushco with daily death tolls as the press served as the Dem party public relations dept.
Daily death tolls are all part of the "if it bleeds it leads" mentaility of modern media. On the whole the anti-war movements arguments were given short shrift among all the hysteria. They were "interesting times" from Bush's scary "mushroom clouds" speech to Blair's "45 minutes to strike" to lies about yellowcake, an outed NOC spy, torture memos, accusations of treason to people who dared express legitmate dissent, and revelations of massive DU bombardment, missing billions, out of control mercenaries etc public opinion started to shift agaist the war.
The real straw that broke the camel's back there was, of course, the lack of WMD. A "known truth" despite all protestations to the contrary it forced a new rationale ie. "nation building" into the mix turning Iraq into a kind of "Forever War".
I think the story has died down - for that matter much of the criticism of our involvement in the middle east - precisely because the press has its guy in the White House.
Actually, the criticisms still persist but the corporate MSM with ties to the MIC feels safer about ignoring them than ever.
Another factor is the healthcare debate and the ravaged economy - a couple of huge ongoing domestic stories which didn't occupy our radar screen back in the good ol' days of heavy Iraq fighting :-)
Truly, concerns about a deteriorating domestic scene has taken precedence over the foreign affairs stuff.
Be Well.
