Posted 8:36 AM by steve

And sometimes the Washington Post is JUST as stupid as the other biased reporters...

Today's page 1 story incorrectly states Palin as connecting Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.

Here's Palin's comment: "(our troops will) ...defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans".

So how does Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblutt listen to that and come away thinking that Palin is saying our troops are going off to fight Hussein? Does Kornblutt think our troops are still fighting Hussein's government? Does Kornblutt think Palin think we're still fighting Hussein's government? Doesn't Kornblutt know our troops are now fighting terrorists who have come into Iraq since our invasion four years ago? Does she think the Iraqis who are causing trouble (such as Al Sadr's militia) were part of the Hussein's government? Does Kornblutt not think that the terrorists we're now fighting are not connected in any way to those who planned and celebrated 9/11?

Getting the story right requires nothing more than a grasp of the English language and a smidgen of common sense. Our troops aren't going to Iraq to fight dead enemies, they're going to fight enemies who are still alive... and those enemies our soldiers are going after are indeed connected to the terrorists who planned and celebrated 9/11.

Maybe, just maybe, had Palin made this comment at the onset of the Iraq invasion, it would have been possible for a listener to think she was alleging a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But Palin didn't make that comment then and it is inconceivable that a reporter - who supposedly understands the English language and is supposed to understand what is going on in the world - would get it wrong as badly as Kornblutt did.

Kornblutt is either clueless about what is going on in Iraq right now or she was deliberately twisting her reporting in order to make Palin look bad. Me thinks it is the latter.