another Washington Post front-page hit piece against the Bush administration. Two weeks ago, it was Rajiv Chandrasekaran's false and misleading attack on the Iraqi reconstruction effort. Last week, it was Karen De Young's one-sided report on the National Intelligence Estimate, as fed to her by anti-administration leakers.

This week, it's Bob Woodward claiming that that "secret reports countered Bush optimism" on Iraq. Woodward's piece is a joke from the opening paragraphs. There he juxtaposes President Bush's claim that "years from now people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty" and the beginning of a retreat by the foces of terror, with an internal report predicting that 2007 would be a bloody year in Iraq. But there's no contradiction here. Bush was not making a prediction about the level of violence in Iraq in 2007; he was stating that the formation of the government signaled the beginning of the long-term demise of terrorism. This prediction may be too optimistic, but it hasn't been shown to be, nor would a prediction about the long-term that turned out to be overly optimistic prediction amount to deception.

Back Talk has more on the Woodward hit piece. I guess we can expect the Post to lead with "drive-by" attacks in the Chandrasekaran, De Young, Woodward style every Sunday until the election.

UPDATE: Mario Loyola at NRO's Corner explains why Woodward himself is guilty of deception.

Posted by Paul at 04:01 PM  |    |