Washington Posts October Surprise? Reporter Paints Bush as Clinton Clone

Washington Posts October Surprise?
Reporter Paints Bush as Clinton Clone

When theres no lunatic sniper taking potshots at innocent people, the Washington Post can usually make a big splash by putting a really, really slanted news item on its front page for lazy and liberal TV reporters to simplify and quote for days on end. That seems to have been the game the Post and its White House correspondent, Dana Milbank, were playing this morning when the paper disguised an op-ed by Milbank as a piece of front-page news. For Bush, Facts Are Malleable, the Post headlined. Presidential Tradition of Embroidering Key Assertions Continues, insisted the subhead.

Milbank revealed nothing that substantiated the Posts derogatory headlines. Instead, he wasted readers time by focusing on three relatively small and unimportant details and he even had to spin those to make them controversial. For instance, he repeated the petty concern of ABCs Martha Raddatz, who took issue with Bushs October 7 claim that Iraq had unmanned planes which could spread chemical or biological poisons on American targets. Charlie, they are not capable of flying that great a distance, Raddatz condescendingly told World News Tonight substitute anchor Charles Gibson on October 8.

Washington Post White House correspondent Dana Milbank penned a front-page news story questioning President Bush's truthfulness.

Of course, such planes could be launched from somewhere besides Iraq, or directed to American targets in the Middle East. For gotcha journalism, its pretty lame.

Now, a full two weeks later, the Post has revived Raddatzs stale theory as shocking proof that Bushs rhetoric has taken some flights of fancy in recent weeks. Milbank dismissed the threat from unmanned Iraqi planes: A CIA report this month suggested that the fleet was more of an experiment and attempt and labeled it a serious threat to Iraqs neighbors and to international military forces in the region but said nothing about it having sufficient range to threaten the United States.

Milbank also scolded the President for a comment made six weeks ago that an International Atomic Energy Agency report found Saddam had been six months away from developing a weapon before Iraqs 1991 defeat. The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability, Milbank wrote. What a stinging rejoinder!

Eight years ago on August 21, 1994, to be exact Post White House correspondent Ruth Marcus wrote an article detailing Bill Clintons problems with truth-telling. She limited herself to matters of fact, not interpretation, and her language was far more neutral than Milbanks snotty tone (flights of fancy). Still, the Post consigned to the editorial pages her rebuke of a liberal Democratic President and thats exactly where Milbanks opinionated story belonged. - Rich Noyes