The Washington Post is being incredibly transparent: it hates hearings into Benghazi. Who needs accountability when our diplomatic posts lack security? The Post portrays this as a partisan exercise. But the very partisan Post has openly worried in its news pages about how the terror attack there will complicate Hillary Clinton’s reputation.
On Monday morning, Post editor Karen DeYoung was blunt (at the bottom of page A-2). The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee isn’t planning hearings. The Republicans are beginning their “promised fall assault” on Team Obama:
In a hearing yesterday before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, an Obama administration official admitted what all of us already knew through credible reports in foreign media: Amb. Chris Stevens died on September 11 "in the course of a terrorist attack." As Karen DeYoung reported in today's Washington Post, National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen told the committee that "the people involved in the violent assault" on the consulate in Benghazi hailed from "several militant groups, including localized extremists in eastern Libya as well as affiliates of al Qaeda."
The Washington Post played up Barack Obama’s war-on-terror credentials at the top of Friday’s front page. (Or to use Team Obama lingo, their war on "man-caused disasters.") The Post used to be upset by secret terror attacks, but now they like them, if they help Obama look strong to voters. "U.S. ‘secret war’ expands globally," boasted the Post headline, "Terror groups are targets."
News that doesn’t make Team Obama look good is harder to find. Take this Jeff Stein story from Wednesday, deep inside on A-13: "The FBI appears to be ready for a chemical, biological or radiological terrorist attack, but the rest of the Justice Department is ‘not prepared,’ according to a blistering audit released Tuesday."
The Obama the Secret Warrior story by Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe is most biased in how it asserts from the first paragraph that Obama is "much more" aggressive than the national-security slacker named George W. Bush:
The Washington Post's Friday and Saturday front-page reports by Karen DeYoung on President Obama's escalation of war in Afghanistan are curiously missing one political element: objections from the strident anti-war groups on the left. Whatever happened to the protesters that treated Bush as a reckless warmonger?
Answer: they're either being marginalized, or they were more interested in getting a Democrat in the White House. The real story wasn't unearthed on the front of the Post, but in liberal blogger Greg Sargent's post on Friday at the Post-operated website WhoRunsGov.com:
Don’t look now, but President Obama’s announcement today of an escalation in the American presence in Afghanistan is being met with mostly silence — and even some support — from the most influential liberal groups who opposed the Iraq War....
I suppose that Karen DeYoung's story could have been buried deeper in the Washington Post, but it would take some effort:
Civil war has been averted in Iraq and Iranian intervention there has "ceased to exist," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said yesterday.
"I can't say there is a picture of roses and flowers in Iraq," Maliki told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. "However, I can say that the greatest victory, of which I am proud . . . is stopping the explosion of a sectarian war." That possibility, he said, "is now far away."
While political reconciliation is not yet complete, he said, progress is being made. "Reconciliation is not a decision that can be made, but a process that takes continuous efforts and also needs strategic patience," Maliki said.