The Washington Post on Obama and Iraq

[maximusveritas]

It's hard not to notice that the Washington Post editorial board has been especially tough on Obama. The latest example is where they single out Obama for committing an "ugly foul" on Pakistan, while praising the other candidates despite the fact that many of them played politics with the assassination in their own way, by raising fears of terrorism or playing up their experience and strength.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3903086&mesg_id=3903086

It seems the problem the Washington Post has with Obama is that he brings up the past judgment of these other candidates on Iraq. Kucinich made a similar point as Obama yesterday as well when he said candidates must answer for their foreign policy decisions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3899608&mesg_id=3899608

Why would the Washington Post have a problem with this?
This Media Matters report lays out the details:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200511160012

Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. conceded in August 2004 that the Post's news reporting failed to provide adequate coverage of those who questioned the Bush administration in the buildup to the war. "Overall, in retrospect, we underplayed some of those stories," he said.

But the Post's editorial page, which endorsed the invasion of Iraq, has yet to retract its numerous prewar assertions that echoed those of the Bush administration and turned out to be false.

So just like some of the current candidates, the Washington Post editorial board is trying to avoid any questions about their failed judgment in the past. Worse than that, they attempted to mislead their readers repeatedly in order to defend their failed judgment.

As it became increasingly clear after the invasion that the Bush administration's claims that Iraq possessed WMD and was closely connected to Al Qaeda were not true, the Post issued more false and misleading claims to defend itself and, to a lesser extent, the Bush administration.

In the end, they know that when you talk about results instead of resumes, they look very bad. On the biggest foreign policy question of our time, they failed.

[AtomicKitten]

1. "On the biggest foreign policy question of our time, they failed."

Exactly.

[maximusveritas]

2. If there was ever a litmus test

that was it. Still, I can respect people like Edwards who admit they were wrong. I can't respect people who try to dodge the question and attack those who bring it up.

[AtomicKitten]

3. I've come around to that POV.

The K-L vote put a distinct wedge between you-know-who and the rest.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. What about Obama's non vote on K-L? That was a deal breaker for me.

[AtomicKitten]

5. Really? So, a "yes" vote for more war is less egregious than not voting?

Ah, okay.

[goldcanyonaz]

6. As a Senator one must vote on tough issues. One isn't put there just to look pretty.

A present or non vote is pathetic. It's like not voting during the Presidential elections and then bitching about who won. If you don't vote your opinion doesn't matter at all.

[AtomicKitten]

7. A "yes" vote for war and more war for political expediency is what is pathetic.

Get that part straight.

[goldcanyonaz]

8. A non vote is pathetic. One who wants to be President should NEVER run from votes.

Get that part straight, or does everything Obama get a pass from you?

[AtomicKitten]

9. No, I'm just capable of critical analysis.

I will not vote for any of the numbnuts that voted for the IWR and especially for K-L. It is the "yes" votes for war and more war that resonate, and I would submit that perhaps it is you that is giving them a pass for same.

[goldcanyonaz]

10. But, you'll surely vote for the "numbnut" who didn't vote for anything?

Yeah, that's the person I want to be President.