I wonder if Richard Cohen's gonna put some ice on that?

B just sent this letter to the Editor of the Washington Post (hint: it ain't ever gonna see newsprint).

Mr. Cohen,

I enjoyed your column in today's Washington Post  and was particularly taken by your statement that "[h]ard times are hard on truth."   By this measure, The Washington Post  must be enduring some very hard times indeed.

While the Post treats its readers to articles about an advisor for John McCain lobbying for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the paper makes no mention of the fact that Barack Obama received more money from lobbyists and employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other member of Congress, except for Christopher Dodd. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html . And it took Senator Obama only three years to raise more money from these institutions that many of his colleagues were able to raise in ten years.

Similarly, the Post  (and most of its columnists) tell readers that the current financial debacle is the result of deregulation of the financial services market, suggesting that the problems we currently face are properly placed at the doorstep of President Bush and conservative philosophy.  But The Washington Post  fails to mention efforts by the Bush Administration to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  For example, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (S. 190), of which Senator McCain and three other Republicans were co-sponsors, would have regulated the secondary mortgages market and placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under tighter regulatory oversight.  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c1094zZ77z::  The bill went nowhere.  It was reintroduced in 2007 (S. 1100) and referred to the Senate Banking Committee chaired by Senator Dodd. Again, the bill went nowhere.   Despite these and other well-intentioned efforts to address the current crisis before it actually became a crisis, The Washington Post  (and most of its columnists) apparently do not want to burden their readers with such facts.

Instead, readers of the Post are treated to a puff piece about Barney Frank, claiming that he is the "real deal" and that his "sense of urgency" in solving the current financial crisis is "palpable."  Libby Copeland, "Rep. Barney Frank Dives Right in on the Bailout," Washington Post  (Sept. 27, 2008).  Yet, the Post  makes no mention of Rep. Frank's persistent opposition to efforts to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that would have avoided, or at least lessened the disaster that our economy is currently facing.  In fact, in 2003 during debate on H.R. 2575—THE SECONDARY MORTGAGE MARKET ENTERPRISES REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT, which would have created a "strengthened regulator" for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, this is what Rep. Frank had to say: "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country."  http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba92628.000/hba92628_0f.htm.  Obviously, Mr. Frank was wrong (as were other prominent Democrats leading the "financial recovery" effort, including Senator Dodd), but you wouldn't know that from reading The Washington Post .

People buy newspapers to get the truth, in both good times and bad.  When people can't get the truth, they look to other sources of information, which likely explains the continued decline in subscribership to The Washington Post. 

Washington Post: "'Bush Lied' Story Line Phony"

Someone pinch me. The Washington Post's Editorial Page Editor -- Fred Hiatt -- just ripped the entrails from the standard slogan of the leftists: "Bush Lied".

First, Hiatt eviscerates Sen. John Rockefeller's (D-WV) summary of his own Select Committee on Intelligence report. The summary was so disconnected from the real report that it could become a blueprint for all future satire.

In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent.

Unsubstantiated contradictions? As Hiatt points out, Rockefeller's summary of the report qualifies, but not the administration's handling of the intelligence data.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Yes, the committee's report completely validates the approach of the Bush administration -- as any rational observer would have concluded in 2003, having heard every Democratic figure other than Jimmy Carter echo the threat of Iraq.

But what about Saddam's ties to terrorism? Surely, Bush was lying about those!

...statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

...it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated...

...To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Put simply, Rockefeller's report completely validates his own 2002 statement as well as that of the Bush administration.

The Anchoress asks the obvious question -- the 800-pound gorilla living in the media's finished basement: why, suddenly, is the WaPo deciding, after 5 years of supporting and promoting the “Bush lied” meme, to clarify?

There are no easy answers to that question. But the New York Sun (via Gateway Pundit) did note one other key facet to the story.

...[the critical Ford] memo came on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His words demolish a talking point for Democrats who still say Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq until the coalition of the willing invaded. Mr. Ford wrote that the former emir of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi "has had a good relationship with Iraqi intelligence officials." He added that intelligence on Qaeda "revealed the presence of safe house facilities in the city as well as the clear intent to remain in Baghdad. Also, foreign NGO workers outside of Iraq who are believed to provide support to al-Qaeda have also expressed their intent to set up shop in Baghdad."

Well, that's certainly something you don't read about in the paper every day!

* * *
Executive Summary: The Bush Lied meme, which was marketed incessantly by the Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), was unadulterated partisan pap. Furthermore, it was dangerous pap, as it presents a future CINC with additional complexities and bickering even when the need to take military action is clear and present.

As it was with Saddam Hussein's factory of terror.

And as it is with Iran's redoubt of nuclear horror.

Bush Derangement Syndrome Sufferer Comment o' the Day

 
Don Surber links to a fascinating Washington Post op-ed that confirms the startling numbers: the surge is working... stunningly well.

The Washington Post today assailed MSM, liberals and critics of the war. But I repeat myself. It is a fine editorial by a newspaper that too many conservatives dismiss as “lefty.” The Post editorial fact checks Hillary’s claim that “civilian deaths have risen.” The Post found otherwise: “A month later, there isn’t much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006 … Hillary lied. For political gain, she flat-out lied. She voted for this war 5 years ago to give her credibility in this presidential campaign. In September, she dumped on the efforts of Gen. Petraeus, whom she dared to portray as a liar. William Safire pegged her well in January 1996 when he called her a “congenital liar.” He took heat for that. He spoke the truth to power before the phrase was co-opted by the power mad on the left...

As might be expected, the BDS sufferers -- not used to seeing positive news of any sort in an op-ed -- exploded in a delirious, Tourettes-like rage. Simply put, the comments are hilarious. The following, offered by 'Red Head Claudine', is typical.

So there is one sure way to end all US troop deaths in Iraq and its real simple, just bring every one of our troops back home to the US and let the Iraqis kill every member of Nazi Dictator Draft Dodger Darth Vader Cheney's Blackwater Republican Guard Mercendary Army and Commander Killer Condi's Waffen SS Blackwater Death Squads, and safe us all that legal expense of trying and executing all of Erik Black Prince of Deaths Paid Killers and Hang President Dry Drunk George W Bush,Darth Vader Cheney,Condoleezza Rice,Nancy Pelosi Steny Hoyer,Harry Reid,Dickey Durbin,GOP Bush Zombie Mitch McConnell,Scumbag Trent Lott,Congressman Bonehead and Bluntbrains, and the Black Prince of Death Blackwater CEO Erick Prince and that will help restore the rule of law and our own US Constitution and our world image as well.

Wow! If anyone can translate that deranged mess, please let us know in the comments. If any medical professionals know the author -- "Red Head Claudine" -- I'd recommend that you up her prescriptions.

And the scary thing is that Claudine is more lucid than most the Democrats I know.

More info: Gateway Pundit has the essential data and graphs.

The Cheerleaders

Hugh Hewitt has the gory details of the media's campaign of information warfare against the U.S. military. William Arkin, who some in the military have termed "a rectal parasite on a sewer rat’s flea," doesn't even have the guts to appear on Hewitt's program.

It figures.