DailyKos reports about how the Washington Post editorial page editor recently slandered Democrats and everybody else who thinks the war is a disaster. You see, according to the Washington Post editorial page editor, we war critics aren't really sincere. We don't care about America, we only care about hurting George Bush. So the Washington Post has now picked up the McCarthyite cudgel that the Bush administration has been using since September 11.
What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.You see, the Washington Post is more interested in currying favor with the Bush administration ever since Katherine Graham died. That's why Bob Woodward is allowed to get away with lying about his massive conflict of interest, why the Washington Post's executive editor said it was "ridiculous" that anyone should suggest Bob Woodward be disciplined, and it's why the Post continues to write such outright un-American lies about anyone who disagrees with the Post about their warped impression that the Iraq war is going so gosh darn well.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
But you have to understand. The Washington Post endorsed this war, so now they have to do everything in their power to justify it and defend Bush, even if it means lying to the public and smearing anyone who disagrees with them.
The new Washington Post. Kind of like the old Washington Times.
