[Stultis]

My email, dashed off this morning to the ombudsman with a cc to Milbank:

How did this ever get by an editor? The entire substance of this "news" story is a non-sequitor: that in affirming the existence of evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq to al Qaeda, and to other terrorists, President Bush's administration was somehow trying to "imply" a link between Saddam and the 911 attacks. But how does this follow? Linkage between Iraq and terrorism generally, Iraq and al Qaeda specifically, and Iraq and 911 are all distinguishable issues, and the administration has distinguished them, and has repeatedly and consistently asserted that there IS compelling evidence of the first two, and that there is NOT, to date, evidence of the last.

At least Milbank attributes the gratuitous claim of attempted implication (if somewhat airily) to "Democrats and some public opinion experts," but the equally gratuitous assertion that the administration has previously been "vague" about the evidentiary status of a Saddam/911 link is made directly by Milibank. The quotes adduced to this claim are laughable in their inadequacy: e.g. "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Gee, is it supposed to be controversial that the Middle East is the geographic base of Middle Eastern terrorism?

I submit that there is no "vagueness" in the public record. The administration has many times asserted Iraq/terrorism links, but has also many times noted the absence of evidence linking Iraq to 911. This is NOT a new or novel assertion. Milbank has constructed a NEWS story out of an EDITORIAL OPINION (and a dubious one at that) attributing "vagueness" to a public record that is clear and consistent. Is it now considered acceptable practice at the Washington Post to slip Op-Eds into the news section?

Finally, as to the headline and lead sentence, and to put the whole matter more succinctly, how can someone DISavow a position never avowed in the first place?

[Miss Marple]

Excellent letter. Now that I have breakfast made for my husband, I think I will do a little bit of investigating Mr. Milbank. Back in a bit.

[Miss Marple]

Well, here is the biography attached to the review of his book about the 2000 election:

Dana Milbank is a staff political writer for the Style section of the Washington Post, for which he covers the presidential campaign. He appears regularly as a guest commentator on Andrea Mitchell's show on MSNBC and other programs. He was previously senior editor at The New Republic, where he was the magazine's White House correspondent, and before that a staff writer at the Wall Street Journal. A graduate of Yale University, Milbank lives in Washington, D.C.

I wonder just exactly when he came to the Washington Post.

[Miss Marple]

Milbank was at The New Republic in 1999. Here is a long review of his questionable writing taste in which the critic castigates Milbank for his repeated use of sexual innuendo when describing the primary candidates, including using pedophile metaphors when describing then Governor Bush:

Milbank up for Silver Sewer

[Peach]

Great job and good morning analysis. The Washington Post has the same record as the NYT - that is to say biased, unapologetic DNC stenographers who work there and learned Spin 101 from their favorite impeached president.