Washington Post Hits ROCK BOTTOM

[jackstraw45]

February 6, 2003 - Lead Editorial:

Irrefutable

Thursday, February 6, 2003; Page A36

AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.
(cut)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A32515-2003Feb5¬Found=true
_____

Lead editorial from July 16, 2003:

Wait for the Facts

Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A22

A COUPLE OF questions have crystallized about the Bush administration's handling of intelligence information on Iraq.

(cut)

And so far there is no hard evidence that President Bush or his top aides knowingly falsified the case for war.

(cut)

Yet that does not mean the decision for war was based on false information. The Africa nugget, after all, formed a small part of the president's argument -- and like other questionable parts of the administration's case, it was widely disputed before the war. The heart of the argument -- that Iraq had repeatedly defied disarmament orders from the United Nations-- was endorsed in December by all 15 members of the U.N. Security Council, and remains indisputable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62128-2003Jul15.html
_______

Finally, this UNBELIEVABLE editorial from Sunday:

Mr. Gore's Blurred View

Sunday, August 10, 2003; Page B06


THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL race seems to be carrying the Democratic Party in a dangerous direction on the issues of the Iraq war and national security -- dangerous for the nation and risky for the party too. Some of the candidates are more off course than others. If they listen to former vice president Al Gore, who took it upon himself last week to suggest a theme of attack for the nine candidates, they will all go off the cliff.

(cut)
This notion -- that we were all somehow bamboozled into war -- is part of Mr. Gore's larger conviction that Mr. Bush has put one over on the nation, and not just with regard to Iraq.

You can see why he might want to think so. Mr. Gore believes, for example, that the Patriot Act represents "a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism." But then how to explain that 98 senators -- including all four Democratic senators now running for president -- voted for it? The president's economic and environmental policies represent an "ideologically narrow agenda" serving only "powerful and wealthy groups and individuals who manage to work their way into the inner circle."

But then why do so many other people support those policies? Mr. Gore has an umbrella explanation, albeit one that many Americans might find a tad insulting: "The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to embed in the public mind mythologies. . . . "

(cut)

Sen. Joe Lieberman has found plenty to criticize in the Bush administration foreign policy without abandoning his longstanding support of American strength and democracy promotion. It's an honorable position, and one that doesn't depend on portraying everyone else as poor saps duped by wizardly Bush propaganda.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39381-2003Aug9.html


I guess the TRUTH HURTS the Post.

Anyone know of a good deal on the NY Times?