|April 12, 2006|
GOP Hypocrite of the Week Nominee, The Washington Post Editorial Board
BuzzFlash Note: We could not wait until Friday's GOP Hypocrite of the Week to bring attention to the Washington Post's obvious work on behalf of the White House. One wonders what Fred Hiatt will get in return. We hope they at least give him a kiss.
A BUZZFLASH READER
I would like to nominate, for your consideration, the Washington Post's Editorial Board as this week's GOP Hypocrite of the Week. It's editor -- Fred Hiatt pretends to be impartial and he alone -- deserves BuzzFlash's GOP Hypocrite of the Week award, for today's column "A Good Leak". But separating the man from the Editorial Board, is impossible, because the article "A Good Leak" was a sneak attack against critics (including Joe Wilson) of Bush's War Lies!? This UNATTRIBUTED hit piece is yet another example of why the Editorial Department at the Washington Post has no credibility and is rapidly becoming a laughingstock. Rather than to list how disgusting this editorial was, I will simply quote just a few of numerous responses, which were quickly posted Sunday night, in response to "A Helpful Leak". This Editorial truly deserves it's own wing in any "Hall of Shame." But I digress, Editor and Publisher says:
"The editorial page, a co-producer and then staunch defender of the war in Iraq, declared in a headline on Sunday that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) info "Scooter" Libby gave to reporters in 2003 was in reality 'A Good Leak.'"
In concluding his piece on Editor and Publisher, Greg Mitchell says:
"No wonder the Post, in today's editorial, calls Wilson's trip to Niger "absurdly over-examined." This is what people say when they want to change the subject instead of having to renew an indefensible position. The Post's editorial page has been wrong from the start on Iraq so we must at least applaud its consistency."
Joshua Marshall at Talking Points Memo says:
"The Post also sticks to the up-is-down claim that Wilson's trip to Niger supported rather than undermined the Niger-uranium claim. That is a viewpoint that can only be maintained if you are willfully ignorant of the backstory to the Niger canard. Wilson's report didn't add a lot to what most in the intelligence community already thought about the pretended Niger story."
He correctly concludes:
"They've made their deal with power. They should justify it on those grounds rather than choosing to mislead their readers."
In my opinion the best rebuke of the Washington Post's Editorial Board was done by Jane Hamshire, when she summed up so many points of view, at):
"The new Washington Post editorial, an enormous turd that editorial page editor Fred Hiatt no doubt wrote, is such an unmitigated piece of BushCo. propaganda, such a giant bag of bullshit it deserves to be taken apart, piece by piece and beaten into the ground."
Then Jane proceeds to do just that and my favorite part was close to the end:
"But the facts do not faze the surreal fantasies engaged in by the Post. No, no, they decide to do all the drugs at once"
I hope Buzzflash will encourage it's readers to read that blog entry. It's is the best review of the Washington Post's editorial Board I've ever seen.
I know we shouldn't condemn a paper like the Washington Post, but they have so openly shilled for the wing nuts, for sooooooo long, that they have earned this rebuke. They were highly critical of Bill Clinton for lying about a Personal Affair (where no one died). But in this Editorial, they actually are defending multiple lies, that have cost lives, treasure and world-wide hatred of this once great nation.
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
Interested in contributing an article to BuzzFlash? Click here for more info.
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.