[shhrubbery!]

It just makes you look retarded to claim that this fine opinion piece by Hoagland is the voice of the Washington Post "admitting" the CIA set up the White House.

OK, maybe I'm retarded.

But isn't Hoagland an editor of the WaPo ?

A piece written by one of the paper's own editors would more likely reflects the "voice of the Washington Post" than would a column written by a guest, or a lone token conservative voice on staff.

If I'm wrong, I welcome correction and I will grovel appropriately.

[Sacajaweau]

As Op-Ed, I believe his writings would be "reviewed" at the very least. If it's satirical, it should be blatant enough that it can't be confused. Read it over and over until you are convinced that he is stating facts or thoughts and what his sources would be for "facts".

[KC Burke]

... will grovel appropriately

.

Grrrrrrr.....

.

.

GRRRRRRRRRRRR>

.

Okay. I will say it. The Washington Post is not 1000% evil and distorting...There, I hope everyone is happy now.

Gosh, excuse me, I have to go change my briefs.

[dollar_dog]

A piece written by one of the paper's own editors would more likely reflects the "voice of the Washington Post" than would a column written by a guest, or a lone token conservative voice on staff.

Any piece written by a columnist, whether by an employee or purchased through syndication, reflects the views and opinions of the columnist...not the paper itself.

In this particular instance, you titled the thread "WaPo admits..." as if the Washington Post is reporting as news that the Wilson business is a CIA set-up. This is absolutely inaccurate (for now), and like I said, does not make you look very bright.

I'm not saying the column isn't interesting, because it certainly is. But you need to recognize the difference between editorial musings and actual news.