The Washington Post's lead editorial, "The War's Momentum," essentially focuses on the continuing delays in Iraq's forming of a draft Constitution. The Post first states: "There is no cause for despair, or for abandoning the basic U.S. strategy in Iraq, which is to support the election of a permanent national government and train security forces capable of defending it with continuing help from American troops."
A fair statement, as that is indeed the president's strategy, and always has been. But then the Post goes on to say that this: "But it is dispiriting, and damaging to the chances for success, that President Bush still refuses to speak honestly to the country about the challenges the United States now faces, or how he intends to address them. "
Further still, the Post makes a charge that "Mr. Bush simply repeated the misleading description of Iraq he offered during his national television address in June, conflating the war with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and describing the enemy as terrorists akin to al Qaeda."
Then the Post seems to contradict itself in the same article: "While it is true that Islamic extremist movements have made Iraq a battleground, and failure to defeat them would be a catastrophe for U.S. security..."
The Post finishes up its lead editorial this way: "If the president would be as candid with the American public, he would improve his chances of gaining the support he will need during the critical and trying months ahead."
If the Washington Post ‘s lead editorial is advancing the argument (theirs) that President Bush has not been candid with the American people, I would add that the mainstream press might also be candid with the American people in regards to the many successes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror in general, that have happened because of a valiant effort by the American military and its information services, and a president who has the will to see it through.