Big surprise that the newspaper that bought Bush's lies about WMD in Iraq hook, line and sinker is now arguing that Bolton having been caught lying to Congress is also no big deal:
Last week, Democrats pounced on an error in Mr. Bolton's Senate questionnaire, on which he said he had not been interviewed by administrative or criminal investigators in the past five years; he had, in fact, been interviewed at one point by the State Department's inspector general -- a fact the administration says slipped his mind. Like many aspects of Mr. Bolton, it's not flattering, but it doesn't justify denying the president a vote on his choice.Yeah, I mean, lying to Congress "isn't flattering," kind of in the same way an oversized suit or a Panama shirt "isn't flattering," but hey, do you not hire someone for one of the most important jobs in the nation simply because he outright lied to you in order to get the job?
Wonder how the Washington Post would handle one of its own reporters who lied in order to get their job?
The new Washington Post: It isn't flattering.
