One wonders what possesses the Washington Post editors to put on Page One a story about Cindy McCain’s past drug addiction. Aside from the lack of anything particularly new or the absence of any suggestion that she plans on playing any substantive role in a McCain administration, you have to ask why? Is the mainstream media so desperate to turn the tide against the ascending campaign of John McCain? Have they exhausted their supply of non-scandals about Sarah Palin?As Confederate Yankee's Bob Owens says:
It is hard to fathom. Even as a matter of self-interest, one would think they have some concern about joining their MSNBC colleagues in the Obama tank. And what’s more, they seemed to have learned nothing from their Palin feeding frenzy: these personalized vendetta pieces don’t work. They only engender sympathy for the victim of the malicious press attacks. . .
And apparently it is a red letter day at the Post. As Bill Kristol details, the paper’s same page one also has an invented Sarah Palin "gaffe" on Iraq. The Post writes:Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."However, the most logical reading of her actual words is not that she was ascribing responsibilty for 9-11 to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but that she was praising the troops for fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq which of course is not just linked to, but is the very group, which was responsible for 9-11.
The idea that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaeda plan the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a view once promoted by Bush administration officials, has since been rejected even by the president himself.
Sarah Palin was obviously addressing the living al Qaeda terrorists that soldiers would face in Iraq, not the ghosts of a regime long dead. How biased or simply dishonest does a reporter have to be to twist that?Answer: yes.
Here's a novel concept: why don't reporters limit themselves to reporting facts.
Or is that simply too much to ask for a media more interested in selecting a President than electing one?