The Lukewarm Washington Post

I’m really getting a major case of The Ass at the Washington Post’s editors this week. I just ran across this story in the WaPo that’s headlined “Saudi prince Offers Lukewarm Support on Iraq” which refers to this quote by the prince;

Prince Saud al-Faisal said he supported “the objectives” of Bush’s plan, which calls for an increase of 20,000 troops to secure Baghdad, but declined to discuss the specifics.

“The details of how to implement those objectives, I don’t think we can cover in one night of discussions,” Saud said, speaking after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had evening and morning meetings with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials. “So I really cannot comment on the means that will be applied.”

So what kind of comment would not be “lukewarm” for the Post? Further on we read;

Saud’s response to Rice’s visit was distinctly cooler than that of the Egyptian foreign minister, who after a meeting with Rice on Monday said Egypt was “supportive of that plan.”

Oh, yeah, it sounds like Egypt is just jumping up and down with glee! Did my readers notice the string of superlatives in that statement? While the Saudis “support the objectives”, the Egyptians are “supportive of that plan”. See the difference between lukewarm and distinctly warmer?

The Washington Post is just full of nuance, aren’t they?

UPDATE: WaPo rewrote the story after 4pm this evening.

Category: Media