I really wish Washington Post reporters would read the Washington Post

It's amazing what they might learn.

For example, in tomorrow's Washington Post we learn that GOP Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) issued a statement saying that he never saw emails a former Page brought to his attention (emails from Foley to the Page that creeped the Page out) back in 2000 or so, Kolbe was not aware the emails were sexually explicit, and that Kolbe did not personally talk to Foley about those emails.

Here is what tomorrow's Post article says:

Meanwhile yesterday, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) issued a statement regarding his knowledge of one complaint about Foley's dealings with pages. Kolbe said that several years ago, a former page alerted his office to "e-mails from Rep. Foley that made him uncomfortable." Kolbe, a former member of the House Page Board, said he did not see the messages "and was not told they were sexually explicit."

Kolbe said that at his suggestion, the complaint was taken to Foley's office and to the House clerk, who oversees the page program on the speaker's behalf.

Of course, what you won't learn in tomorrow's Washington Post story about Mr. Kolbe's statement is that Kolbe just totally contradicted the statement his spokeswoman gave the Post on Monday - that would be 48 hours ago. Here is what Monday's Washington Post reported:

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship....

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

So, on Monday we learned from the Washington Post that Kolbe confronted Foley about the creepy emails to the kid, and that he had personally seen the emails. We also learn that a second source read the emails to the Post and they were reportedly sexually explicit (you'll note the Post didn't deny that fact). But then tomorrow we learn that Kolbe didn't confront Foley and that Kolbe never saw the emails, and was never aware that they were sexually explicit.

Only problem is, tomorrow's Post article doesn't tell you all of that. Why not? Who knows. They just reprint Kolbe's statement when they know he's just contradicted his own spokeswoman and a second source. I.e., the Washington Post pretty much knows Kolbe is lying, but they reprint what he says anyway, with no additional information.

And reporters wonder why the blogs get so ticked at them. Why do people have to find out about these things from me when it's in your own newspaper?