The Washington Post is now officially an apologist.

http://strategy08.wordpress.com

Let's not forget this Maliki quote from Der Spiegel either:

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic.

And there's more from the NYT piece on direct translation of the Maliki tape:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Maliki's comments by The Times: "Obama's remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq."

He continued: "Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq."

Katherine was no lefty, but she must be spinning in her grave when she sees what has happened to her newspaper!

All right, gather the torches and pitchforks....

let's take back our media. mainstream, my ass!

Oh, why doesn't the dang Post just merge with the Washington Times already and get it over with?

Unfortunately, there are some who still believe that the Washington Post leans to the left. This belief is not based on substance, but rather reputation of a time long since past. This makes these kind of inaccurate editorials from the Washington Post all the more damaging, as the 24hour news culture latches on to them as if they are is presenting an alternative view. "Look," they say, "Even the Washington Post is agreeing with us."

The seven month claim also includes the assumption that troops start withdrawing the day Obama comes into office. But Obama will only give the new mission on that day. The surge was announced four months before it began. Subtract four from seven, and you get a three month gap.

Also missing here is that this is combat troops, and Obama says the exact ending stance is something to be negotiated with Iraq and based on conditions.

. . . and you'll notice that Obama is starting to use the "2010" timetable for withdrawal to coincide with Iraq's now official stance.

Hiatt would have made a good Allied p.r. manipulator on the Western front.
Think how history would look differently at butcher Haig had Hiatt been at the Somme and at Ypres.

"When they stand up, then we'll stomp them down" George W. Bush

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20080722/stt080722.gif

What's most disgusting about this particular spin is that is sweeps nicely under the carpet that the U.S. Special Forces recently went into Karbala province, without informing Iraqis, and killed al-Maliki's cousin gangster-style. They took him into a room and shot him.

Obviously our media and political overlords have make a nice habit of ignoring anything that actually happens in Iraq, but this is vile, even for jags like Dan Senor/Fred Hiatt.

I'd also guess at this point there are two sources for Repub. panic. The obvious one is the damage these stories have done to McCain's campaign.

The other is a guess--but they are responding to Obama's/al-Maliki's statements as if they secretly know U.S. withdrawal will benefit Iraq in the short and long-term. They wouldn't be so scared if they didn't think the strategy would actually pay off.

It's like an alternate universe.

The same with CBS. Katie Couric has a "hard-hitting" interview with Obama, followed by that farce of a one with McCain, McCain makes a huge "gaffe", and everyone dismisses it as a "gaffe", and says that the voters don't really care about this.

That from a Reuters correspondent. Well, asshole, voters won't care about it if they don't know about it. McCain's base is busy at work, propping up this farce of a candidacy.

It's an alternate reality.

...by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

As a Navy veteran, this really bothers me, this thought that Obama should be concerned about what "US commanders" think. Commanders will say that they think whatever their Commander-in-Chief thinks. Admiral Mullen got into trouble precisely because he was making it clear that he disagrees with the current president. Good order and discipline requires that military commanders keep their opinions to themselves or to express those opinions in a deeply private and confidential manner.
It's perfectly okay for a commander to disagree with the C-in-C behind closed doors, it is most certainly not okay for Hiatt to run around suggesting "We've taken a poll of the commanders and they disagree with the incoming C-in-C!"
If the new C-in-C says what the new policy is, it's the job of commanders to snap to, salute smartly and carry out those orders.

The WaPo has deteriorated, just as Woodward, their star reporter, has.

People like Woodward, David Border, and Judy Miller, late of the NY times, have learned that brown nosing power is better for your career than speaking truth to it.

Today's media: Incompetents peddling stool softner to incontinents.

WaPo has really gone hill if they are nitpicking about 16 months vs 23 months. The Iraqi government spoke about "end" of 2010 which could just mean the latter half of 2010 not necessarily Dec 2010.

The bottom line is that Obama and the Iraqi government are in sync in a timeline that happens in 2010. I am sure if Obama becomes president those 16 months will NOT be exact but could be 14 months, 18 months, 23 months, etc.

Ending the war will NOT be an exact science and will realistically be a give-and-take about getting troops out. Obama is just stating the 16 months as a goal to strive for but he allows for flexibility.

Just ridiculousness...

The WaPo editorial board was always in the tank for the Iraqi War.

Ol' Katie Graham's spinning in her grave....

Posting this for the millionth time:
WaPo will shill for whatever candidate will maintain NCLB. No Child Left Behind is the only thing standing between the Washington Post Company and insolvency. Obama is NOT that candidate, nor is any Dem.

It's funny, but I'm noticing that more and more of my neighbors, who have always been a mix of Republican and Democratic, liberal and conservative, are starting to see through the little tricks that Mr. Hiatt and the rest of the corporate media use to try to force us into their view of the way things ought to be.

It seems that every few days I am completely surprised by another 72 year-old retired garbage man or 42 year-old day trader who tells me that they're really optimistic about the country if Barack Obama gets elected. This is Chicago after all, and my neighbors are lower middle-class, young yuppies and retired folks, as well as lots of the "hard-working" WHITE folks (you know, "regular" Americans). At least from around here, it looks like Barack Obama is going to win in a huge landslide.

I'm sure there are pockets of hard-core racists and GOP dead-enders, but there's no way they're going to get 150 electoral college votes, much less enough to win the White House.

I was more shocked by this assertion in the WaPo editorial:
"[Obama] insists that Afghanistan is "the central front" for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered."

So... Al-Qaeda is really head-quartered in Pakistan? Since before 2001? Guess W shoulda invaded Pakistan rather than Afghanistan, eh? Whoopsie!

More to the point, I think Obama insists that pressure be brought on Pakistan to act against Al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan... But what would I know, I am not as informed as the WaPo editorial board.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1108171
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343332,00.html
(yes, even Fox!)
And even Admiral Mike Mullen:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec08/mullen_07-22.html

Since Hiatt became editorial page editor, he's pretty much turned the WaPo into a milder version of creepy Paul Gigot's WSJ editorial section, except on matters related to the Middle East, in which his pages are a carbon copy of Gigot's. For example, they both demanded a pardon for Scooter Libby, endorsed the re-election of Joe Lieberman, and condemned Jimmy Carter as a Moslem appeaser. Every issue contains a column claiming that the War in Iraq has been a brilliant victory on the part of Bush and several times a week, someone makes a case for attacking Iran.