Today's Washington Post editorial, "Mr. Bush on Iraq" brought us a new concept. They have pronounced that Bush's connection of Iraq to 9/11 is not spurious. You see, according to the Post, "Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic terrorists"! Wonder if anyone could look into how that happened?
Now I realize that the Post has been covering their behinds for years now since they egged Bush on in his crusade. They quickly tut-tut some things that he may overlook, or that he does not communicate his message to the people, but once the obligatory qualifiers are neatly laid out they remind us that we have a solemn duty to persevere.
In the meantime they refuse to cover real news with their minimal coverage of the DSM and the subsequent British memos--other than that condescending piece of garbage that Dana Milbank put out on the Conyers hearings--until seven weeks after the story first broke.
Meanwhile they bask in their reflected glory of their salad days with the revelation of deep-throat. Yeah, trot out Bradlee, Bernstein and Woodward and remeber what it was like when you actually covered the news.
I don't suppose anyone has told them that Bush's connection of 9/11 to Iraq is spurious to put it mildly. I probably would go with outright lying. While driving today I cruised down AM right-wingnut lane and even CSPAN and heard several people remark that of course there is a connection. How do they know this, the government said so!
Way to go Post. Maybe while you have the old guys in there recalling the days of typewriters, ashtrays, bourbon and memeographs, you can ask them where they left the balls!