The Editorial Washington Post SHOULD Have Published

Excerpt this:

April 16, 2006
NYT Editorial
A Bad Leak

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

.... this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

... the version of the facts that Mr. Libby was authorized to divulge was so distorted that it seems more like disinformation than any sincere attempt to inform the public.

This fits the pattern of Mr. Bush's original sales pitch on the Iraq war -- hyping the intelligence that bolstered his case and suppressing the intelligence that undercut it. ... (emphases mine)

Shrub & the Repubs aren't the only ones who can be disingenuous (feckless dems aside) -- the Editorial side of the Washington Post has been (deservedly) taken to task over "A Good Leak" -- a recent editorial taking Bush's side that he was 'declassifying' not 'cherry-picking and selectively leaking' classified information for purely manipulative political purposes.

So, today the New York Times shows (excerpt above) it will belly up to the bar and proffer another, more sober interpretation instead of all the winking, finger-crossing and back-tracking exemplified by the WaPo and this incompetent, lie-filled administration.

On a related note, I find it extremely interesting (and telling) that the WP sneakily 'hid' their Good Leak editorial inside the 'print edition' and did not trumpet it among the editorials of the online version on April 9. I really had to do some determined hunting to find the thing. Just try searching for the term 'Good Leak' it in the main page search box if you don't believe me.

NYT editorial here, WaPo here.