Yesterday we posted on the pretty obvious dive into the tank the Washington Post was taking for Barack Obama. As evidence we pointed to the rather shameless sucking up Dan Eggen and Sudarsan Raghavan offered to the Obama campaign at the expense of their integrity -- or whatever passes for such a notion with them -- and the truth.
It seems as though we may have been mistaken. Perhaps the Washington Post hasn't done a reverse two-and-a-half gainer on behalf of Obama. Today's lead editorial in the Washington Post by way of my colleague Moe Lane's post earlier today:
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.
However, the Post's reporters don't share that view. From a front page story today by Dan Balz and confirmed Obama fellatisto Sudarsan Raghavan headlined "After Visit, Obama Defends Iraq Plan":
Obama got an unexpected boost while in Iraq when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called for a withdrawal timetable that would have U.S. combat forces leave that country by the end of 2010.
As we wrote yesterday, the al-Maliki proposal actually proposes US troops in Iraq nearly 50% longer than the Obama plan and as the Washington Post editorial today points out the Iraqis actually don't support his strategy.
We've become accustomed to Washington Post reporters editorializing in their news copy. That sort of hucksterism has truly reached a nadir, however, when the advocacy of the reporters distorts the facts beyond recognition and we have to turn to their editorial page for balanced coverage of the news.