Why I despise the Washington Post: Bush "Listens Closely" to Petraeus as the top story?

[Faygo Kid]

"Bush Listens Closely To His Man in Iraq."

That's the headline, front page, top right, in today's Washington Post. And it's obviously planted by the Administration, and the Washington Post is also an obvious tool doing Bush's bidding yet again.

When did Bush start "listening" to his generals? When Gen. Shinseki disagreed with his assessment of this "cakewalk" war? More recently, when Admiral Fallon criticized attacking Iran, and was forced out? No, of course not. He has never "listened" to his generals; he has used them as cover. And he is doing it again, and this time Michael Abramowitz at the Post is playing the role of Judith Miller at the New York Times - Administration shill. Yeah, Bush has "hitched his fortunes to those of his bookish four-star general" (puke) alright, and rightly so, because Petraeus is his and Dick Cheney's ventriloquist dummy, ready to spew about Iran next week in front of a Congress - Dems included - all too ready to swallow more of the same snake oil we have been treated to for the last six years.

If this era's Washington Post had been in place in 1972, they would have criticized any attempt to look into the Watergate break-in, and run editorials incessantly about why the Nixon Administration was so right to keep us in Vietnam.

Here's the link. Judge for yourself. And add this planted article to the growing list of evidence that an attack on Iran is imminent: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502265.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008040502476

[Faygo Kid]

1. Kicked one time because it happened in 2002, as well. And I want comment this time.