The Washington Post has sunk to this level.
Photo: a kingdom for a donkey

It's no big secret that the Washington Post has been a corrupt, partisan, rightist, unpatriotic, and unreliable news source for some time, especially when it comes to the lies of wealthy and powerful Republicans.

However, a 12/3/10 editorial by this propaganda rag attacking the movie "Fair Game" which explores the crimes committed by the Bush regime against Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson took things to astonishing extremes.

The only grudging admiration I can offer the Post's editorial board was its efficiency. They managed to pack so many lies into such short sections of text with a ruthless efficiency that the paper seldom devotes to actual new reporting.

Lies (3):

The movie portrays Ms. Plame as having cultivated a group of Iraqi scientists and arranged for them to leave the country, and it suggests that once her cover was blown, the operation was aborted and the scientists were abandoned. This is simply false. In reality, as The Post's Walter Pincus and Richard Leiby reported, Ms. Plame did not work directly on the program, and it was not shut down because of her identification.

Facts:

1) Ms. Plame did work directly on the program.

2) There was no claim that the entire program was shut down. The claim was that CIA front company that Plame was involved with was shut down.

3) That company was shut down, and the lives of its employees were endangered.

Lies (7):

The movie portrays Mr. Wilson as a whistle-blower who debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger. In fact, an investigation by the Senate intelligence committee found that Mr. Wilson's reporting did not affect the intelligence community's view on the matter, and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush's statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.

.
Facts:

1) Joseph Wilson was a whitle-blower.

2) He debunked the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger.

3) The entire US intelligence community knew that the claim was false.

4) George W. Bush and the rest of his administration deliberately lied when they made the claim.

5) The Senate intelligence committee's "investigation" was a fraudulent, partisan, GOP sham.

6) The British "investigation" was a white wash designed to protect Tony Blair from political scrutiny and criminal prosecution.

7) The Downing Street Memos prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that both the US and British Government knew that there was no Iraqi nuclear program.

Lies (4):

"Fair Game" also resells the couple's story that Ms. Plame's exposure was the result of a White House conspiracy. A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy - but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative.

Facts:

1) The supposed "investigation" was conducted by Patrick Fitzgerald, a highly partisan and politically connected Republican who took Bush regime claims at face value rather than running a real investigation.

2) It is physically impossible for a newspaper column to be the prime source of information on this. Insider information was needed for Robert Novak to make his treasonous revelations.

3) The sources of the leak were in the Bush regime.

4) The leaks were coordinated by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and probably other Bush regime officials.

Lies (2):

Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth - not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife - the myth endures.

Facts:

1) Joe Wilson did tell the truth about the war.

2) Joe Wilson did tell the truth about his wife.

---

The Washington Post really is trying to out Moonie the Moonie owned Washington Times.

I should note that the facts I have pointed out have been widely and publicly known for several years for now. There is no possible way that the Washington Post could not be aware of them.

The dishonesty is yet another example of the corporate media's Judith Miller style approach to "journalism." "Reporters," pundits, and editorial boards act as stenographers for the lies of the wealthy and the powerful, especially when those lies get our country into illegal, corrupt, and genocidal wars. I can't imagine why anyone would subscribe to the Washington Post. Why pay to be lied to in a way that only serves to insult one's intelligence?

Photo: Mat Honan

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a fabulous organization that challenges one of my blog's biggest pet peeves, rightist bias in the corporate media. They do wonderful work, and I encourage you to follow their work and support it.

It's the end of the year, and people are giving out awards, so FAIR is giving out the 2009 P.U.-Litzer Awards, acknowledging the crappy reporting that discourages intelligent people from buying newspapers and news magazines and causes people to avoid cable "news" networks. Here's the contents of their 12/22/09 press release announcing these not prestigious awards.

For 17 years our colleagues Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon have worked with FAIR to present the P.U.-Litzers, a year-end review of some of the stinkiest examples of corporate media malfeasance, spin and just plain outrageousness.

Starting this year, FAIR has the somewhat dubious honor of reviewing the nominees and selecting the winners. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. So, without further ado, we present the 2009 P.U.-Litzers.

--The Remembering Reagan Award
WINNER: Joe Klein, Time

Time columnist Joe Klein (12/3/09), not altogether impressed by Obama's announcement of a troop escalation in Afghanistan, wrote that a president "must lead the charge--passionately and, yes, with a touch of anger."

He described the better way to do this:

Ronald Reagan would have done it differently. He would have told a story. It might not have been a true story, but it would have had resonance. He might have found, or created, a grieving spouse--a young investment banker whose wife had died in the World Trade Center--who enlisted immediately after the attacks...and then gave his life, heroically, defending a school for girls in Kandahar. Reagan would have inspired tears, outrage, passion, a rush to recruiting centers across the nation.

Ah, Reagan--now there was a president who could inspire people to fight and die based on lies.

--The Cheney 2012 Award
WINNER: Jon Meacham, Newsweek

Newsweek editor Jon Meacham declared (12/7/09) that Dick Cheney running for president in 2012 would be "good for the Republicans and good for the country." He explained that "Cheney is a man of conviction, has a record on which he can be judged, and whatever the result, there could be no ambiguity about the will of the people.... A campaign would also give us an occasion that history denied us in 2008: an opportunity to adjudicate the George W. Bush years in a direct way."

While the 2008 election might have seemed a sufficient judgment of the Bush years, it's worth pointing out that at beginning of the year (1/19/09), Meacham was adamantly opposed to re-hashing Cheney's record, calling it "the rough equivalent of pornography--briefly engaging, perhaps, but utterly predictable and finally repetitive." The difference? That was in response to the idea that Cheney should be held accountable for lawbreaking. Apparently a few months later, the same record is grounds for a White House run.

--The Them Not Us Award
WINNER: Martin Fackler, New York Times

The New York Times (11/21/09) describes the severe problems with Japan's elite media--a horror show where "reporters from major news media outlets are stationed inside government offices and enjoy close, constant access to officials. The system has long been criticized as antidemocratic by both foreign and Japanese analysts, who charge that it has produced a relatively spineless press that feels more accountable to its official sources than to the public. In their apparent reluctance to criticize the government, the critics say, the news media fail to serve as an effective check on authority."

The mind reels.

--Thin-Skinned Pundits Award
WINNER: Dana Milbank, Washington Post

Washington Post reporters Dana Milbank and Chris Cilizza got into trouble when, in an episode of their "Mouthpiece Theater" web video series, they suggested brands of beer that would be appropriate for various politicians. What would Hillary Clinton drink? Apparently something called "Mad Bitch." The video, unsurprisingly, was roundly criticized, and was pulled from the Post site. So what lesson was learned? Milbank complained (8/6/09) that "it's a brutal world out there in the blogosphere.... I'm often surprised by the ferocity out there, but I probably shouldn't be."

Yes, the problem with calling someone a "bitch" is the "ferocity" of your critics.

--The Sheer O'Reillyness Award
WINNER: Bill O'Reilly, Fox News Channel--TWICE!

1) Asked by a Canadian viewer, "Has anyone noticed that life expectancy in Canada under our health system is higher than the USA?," Fox's O'Reilly (7/27/09) responded: "Well, that's to be expected, Peter, because we have 10 times as many people as you do. That translates to 10 times as many accidents, crimes, down the line."

2) Drumming up fear of Democrats' tax plans: "Nancy Pelosi and her far-left crew want to raise the top federal tax rate to 45 percent. That's not capitalism. That's Fidel Castro stuff, confiscating wages that people honestly earn."

Perhaps Castro was president of the United States in 1982-86, when the top rate was 50 percent. Or maybe all of the 1970s, when it was 70 percent. Or from 1950-63, when it was 91 percent.

--The Less Talk, More Bombs Award
WINNER: David Broder, Washington Post

Post columnist Broder expressed the conventional wisdom on Barack Obama's deliberations on the Afghanistan War, writing under the headline "Enough Afghan Debate" (11/15/09):

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision--whether or not it is right.

--The Racism Is Dead Award
WINNER: Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote (5/5/09): "The justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this."

For the record, "every poll" does not actually show this; the vast majority of Americans continues to recognize that racism is still a problem. Cohen went on to write months later--still presumably living in his racism-free world--that he did not believe Iran's claims about its nuclear program, because "these Persians lie like a rug."

--The When in Doubt, Talk to the Boss Award
WINNER: Matt Lauer, NBC News

Today show host Lauer announced a special guest on April 15: "If you really want to know how the economy is affecting the average American, he's the guy to talk to." Who was Lauer talking about? Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke. The ensuing interview touched on the Employee Free Choice Act, which Lauer noted was supported by many unions but opposed by some large corporations--leading him to ask Duke, "What's the truth?" Yes, look for "the truth" about a proposed pro-labor bill from the new CEO of an adamantly anti-labor corporation.

--The Socialist Menace Award
WINNER: Michael Freedman, Newsweek

Newsweek's "We Are All Socialists Now" cover (2/16/09) certainly turned heads, but one of the stories inside explained in more detail the real threat. As senior editor Michael Freedman asked: "Have you noticed that Barack Obama sounds more like the president of France every day?"

The real problem, though, is what that's going to do to us Americans, says Freedman: "If job numbers continue to look dismal, or get even worse, an ever-greater number of people will start looking to the government for support.... It's very easy to imagine a chorus of former American individualists demanding cushy French-style pensions and free British-style healthcare if their private stock funds fail to recover and unemployment inches upward toward 10 percent and remains there."

Pensions and healthcare for all--this is worse than we thought!

--The Iraq All Over Again Award
WINNER: Too Many to Name

After the invasion of Iraq, countless journalists who had treated allegations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as facts were embarrassed when there were no such weapons to be found. So you'd think they'd be more careful about thinly sourced claims that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. But in 2009, many journalists are still willing to treat such allegations as facts.
-NBC's Chris Matthews (10/4/09): "As if Afghanistan were not enough, now there's Iran's move to get nuclear weapons."
-NBC's David Gregory (10/4/09). "Iran--will talks push that country to give up its nuclear weapons program?"


-Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (9/25/09): "All hell breaking loose as a new nuclear weapons facility is discovered in Iran, proving the mullahs have been lying for years.... Iran's nuclear weapons program has now reached critical mass. And worldwide conflict is very possible. Friday, President Obama, British Prime Minister Brown and French President Sarkozy revealed a secret nuclear weapons facility located inside Iran."

Some even went further, turning allegations of a nuclear weapons program into the discovery of actual nuclear weapons:

-ABC's Good Morning America host Bill Weir (9/26/09): "President Obama and a united front of world leaders charge Iran with secretly building nuclear weapons."

--The Talking Like a Terrorist Award
WINNER: Thomas Friedman, New York Times

In a January 14 column, New York Times superstar pundit Tom Friedman explained Israel's war on Lebanon as an attempt to "educate" the enemy by killing civilians: The Israeli strategy was to "inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical." Friedman added, "The only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians--the families and employers of the militants--to restrain Hezbollah in the future." That strategy of targeting civilians to advance a political agenda is usually known as terrorism; Osama bin Laden couldn't have explained it much better.

--The It Only Bothers Us Now Award
WINNER: Wall Street Journal editorial page

When Barack Obama only called on journalists from a list during a press conference, the Wall Street Journal did not like the new protocol (2/12/09):"We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors."

Actually, Bush was famous for calling only on reporters on an approved list; as he joked at a press conference on the eve of the Iraq War (3/6/03), "This is scripted."

--The No Comment Award
WINNERS: MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Rush Limbaugh

When asked by Politico (10/16/09) to name her favorite guest, MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski named arch-conservative Pat Buchanan "because he says what we are all thinking."

Rush Limbaugh on Obama (Fox News Channel, 1/21/09): "We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles...because his father was black."

The last award strongly suggests that Limbaugh really, really needs to get laid. I don't volunteer to help him.

 

The Clinton smear campaign, which repeatedly has attacked Barack Obama for one occasion where he was praising Ronald Reagan's communications style, is hoping people won't find out about this. In 1991, Bill Clinton went a major step further, praising Reagan's policies as well as rhetoric.

E.J. Dionne Jr. has a better memory than the Clinton smear campaign would like us to have.

"The idea that we were going to stand firm and reaffirm our containment strategy, and the fact that we forced them to spend even more when they were already producing a Cadillac defense system and a dinosaur economy, I think it hastened their undoing," Clinton declared.

Clinton was careful to add that the Reagan military program included "a lot of wasted money and unnecessary expenditure," but the signal had been sent: Clinton was willing to move beyond "the brain-dead politics in both parties," as he so often put it.

It was common knowledge at the time that the Soviet Union had collapsed on its own, without any help from Ronald Reagan. It already was widely known that the Reagan Administration had intelligence early on that the Soviet Union was collapsing but lied to Congress in order to make military contractors richer.

In other words, Bill Clinton told a whopper of a lie.

But, lying is exactly what one would expect from someone who lied about the military ban, "welfare reform," NAFTA, the WTO, trade normalization with China, genocidal sanctions against Iraq, and so many other substantive issues. Clinton's constant stream of lies is typical for a Republican like him.

No wonder he liked Ronald Reagan so much.

Hat tip to the Genius of Insanity for pointing this out.

Rightist bias in these two publications gets more rabid with each passing day. A really twisted example of this occurred in the Washington Post's ironically named "fact-checker" column. The column consisted of highly deceptive spin and factual errors intended to falsely claim that MoveOn.org's "Betray Us" ad was inaccurate. The Post was propagandizing for the GOP and the corporate interests that profit from the Iraq War in the guise of "fact-checking."

True income for middle class and poor Americans has been declining for years. Many Americans are up to their earlobes in debt. Why should any of us pay to get a bunch of corporate propaganda when we can get actual news over the Internet for free? How much longer will so many people be willing to pay to have their intelligence insulted?

People should stop buying these corporate propaganda rags on the newsstand. Subscriptions should be canceled with explanations as to why those two papers are not worth paying for. We the people have power over corporate interests. We just need to educate ourselves to that fact.

The Washington Post has been a partisan Republican rag for years or even decades, but sometimes they take it to extreme levels. One case was today's coverage of U.S. District Judge John D. Bates' dismissal of the Plame lawsuit against corrupt members of the Bush regime.

The Post omitted critical information in order to create a false air of legitimacy to the ruling. The article acknowledged that the defendants in the case revealed Ms. Plame's then-undercover identity as a CIA agent, but conveniently neglected to mention that the identity of an undercover CIA business used to monitor weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East was revealed, in addition to the identities of agents and informants who had worked with Plame while she was under cover.

This is important given the grounds that Bates used in order to dismiss the case. Bates falsely claimed that the actions of the defendants were part of their duties as government officials.

From the Washington Post article:

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

This is a flat-out lie.

Bates is perfectly aware of the fact that illegally revealing the identities of CIA agents and covert operations could not ever possibly be “within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials.” Bates also knows that the purposes of the actions against Ms. Plame were not to rebut criticism, but to punish her husband and to intimidate other potential whistle-blowers in the government.

Why did Bates lie?

The Post omitted essential facts which make the reasons painfully obvious. The facts are not difficult to find. Two are easily found in Bates' official bio, which I readily obtained running a single Google search.

Judge Bates was appointed United States District Judge in December 2001.

He was appointed by the same administration whose highest political operatives were defendants in the lawsuit.

Judge Bates was on detail as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater investigation from 1995 to mid-1997.

Anyone involved with Ken Starr's partisan hackery is a GOP crony of the worst kind, putting partisan politics ahead of the rule of law.

Another damning fact can be found by doing just a bit more Googling.

Bates' illegally dimissed a lawsuit by the General Accounting Office to get access to records from Dick Cheney's illegal secret meetings with energy company donors on energy policy. Bates used false jurisdictional claims in that case which were somewhat similar to the false jurisdictional claims made in the Plame case.

The Post ignored this past breach of judicial trust by Bates' in pursuit of a partisan, GOP agenda, just as it ignored Bates' conflict of interest and his involvement with the highly disreputable Ken Starr. Readers of the article were led to believe that this was a perfectly normal ruling by a disinterested jurist.

Bates' actions have seriously undermined the credibility of the federal judiciary. The Post long ago sacrificed any sliver of credibility it had on the altar of partisan, Republican politics.

I knew for some time that the Washington Post's media critic Howard Kurtz was an obnoxious rightist. But, I had no idea that he was such a hateful bigot. Thanks to Media Matters, I now do.

On April 12, ABC's News had a segment with Kurtz chiming in on Imus:

KURTZ: The pressure on CBS -- just as it had been with NBC -- from this national eruption over Imus' racial remark simply proved to be too great. He became the symbol, the poster boy, for all of the anger in the country about radio hosts and television hosts who go too far and, in the end, he couldn't survive.

DAVID MUIR (World News Saturday anchor): Imus and his radio show had a long history of off-color remarks. Just last year, he called his own bosses "the Jewish management," and he used other words to describe them, as well.

KURTZ: Over the years, Imus made fun of blacks, Jews, gays, politicians. He called them lying weasels. This was part of his charm. But when he went too far, he became his own worst enemy.

This is sick and wrong for so many reasons. What is “charming” about making fun of blacks, gays, and Jews? Notice how Kurtz does not act as if making fun of whites, Christians, and heterosexuals is “charming.”

Since when are blacks, Jews, and gays “lying weasels”? This is reprehensible.

Also, it is truly offensive to act as if an often disreputable group of people like politicians is somehow comparable to queers, Jews, and African-Americans.

Kurtz really is horrible. His employment at the Washington Post discredits a newspaper already made disreputable by its right-wing bias and its butt kissing of the Bush regime.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Has Had Some Excellent Reports on Imus:

Racism Is to Be Expected From Don Imus
Why Does Tim Russert Associate With Don Imus' Bigotry?
The Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

It takes a lot to shock me, but some of Deborah Lipstadt's commentary in the 1/20/07 edition of the Washington Post, “Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem” left me stunned and outraged.

Now, no one should be surprised that a right-wing extremist would try to say that anyone who criticizes the policies of Israeli governments is “anti-Semitic” or has a “Jewish Problem.” This is standard Karl Rove-style spin meant to demonize people whose points of views do not follow the far-right line.

What really stunned me was that she actually tried to exploit the Holocaust in order to justify Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians. The Holocaust is completely irrelevant to this. The Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The heinous nature of the Holocaust in no way excuses any other injustice.

More importantly, cynically exploiting the Holocaust in a misleading fashion insults the memories of the people killed. Misusing a horrific genocide as a cheezy political ploy is reprehensible.

Many of the people killed in the Holocaust were killed because they were queer. As a queer man, mocking the Holocaust in the way that Lipstadt did in her commentary is a horribly, homophobic, personal insult. It is just as insulting to all people in communities targeted by the Holocaust who actually care about what happened.

I also am offended by the Washington Post's decision to print this outrage. They should have at least strong enough editorial standards not to publish commentaries that mock the deaths of people killed in the Holocaust. I know that the Post is a very rightist, Republican paper, but just how low are they willing to sink?

This is hardly the first example of outrageous homohatred by the corporate media, and I bet it won't be the last.

The Washington Post showed how desperate it can be to shill for the Bush Administration and the GOP in it’s Editorial, “The Right Vote.”

Despite Roberts the blatant contempt Roberts has demonstrated for the Constitution and women’s rights throughout his career, the Post acted as if he has some sort of inalienable right to a Supreme Court seat. Even worse is the Post’s lack of concern about Roberts’ blatantly unethical behavior.

As long as women, people of color, and queers will face the brunt of Roberts’ contempt for the Constitution, the Post thinks it is somehow out-of-bounds to oppose it. The Editorial ironically claimed that the actions of the three Democrats who cast cowardly and cynical votes for Roberts actions’ “took guts.” Talk about unintentional comedy.

Even worse, the Post  lied about liberals opposing Roberts, saying:

The liberal groups have made clear that they will oppose any nominee from this administration, regardless of qualifications, temperament or testimony.

This is truly bizarre. Throughout his career, Roberts has behaved as a dangerous fanatic, bent on destroying Constitutional Rights. Roberts has refused to recuse himself on a recent case where the defendants were interviewing him for the very Supreme Court appointment in question. Anyone concerned with women’s rights, constitutional rights, and ethics in government would have no choice but to oppose Roberts.

If the Post were honest, they would acknowledge the fact that the Bush regime wants to pack the courts with dangerous, anti-Constitutional extremists. Sadly, corporate interests and ideology have trumped honest discourse at that paper. It is typical of the corporate media, but it is particularly frustrating when there is so much at stake.

The Washington Post’s usual habit is to propagandize in favor of corporate interests and the GOP in its “news pages” while running moderate to liberal editorials. This lets them promote their right-wing agenda while giving their knuckle-walking rightist subscribers the proper impression that they are part of the “liberal media.” Every once in a while, they slip up big time as was the case in their recent editorial trying to put a positive spin on Bush’s gulags.

The Post actually had the audacity to write about Amnesty International’s use of the term “gulags” in the following manner:

But lately the organization has tended to save its most vitriolic condemnations not for the world's dictators but for the United States.

This is laughable when you remember that George W. Bush is illegally occupying the White House due to not one, but two stolen elections. Thus far, the Post has refused to report that either election has been stolen. This claim also is deceptive because condemning the actions of the Bush regime is not condemning the United States. The Bush regime in no way represents the United States.

The Post also falsely claimed that “Guantanamo Bay is an ad hoc creation, designed to contain captured enemy combatants during wartime.” In fact, the gulag at Guantanamo Bay is part of the Bush regime’s broader desire to torture and imprison Muslims. So far, none of the American citizens illegally imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay has been charged or tried in a legitimate court of law.

The Post goes on to say:

Abuses there -- including new evidence of desecrating the Koran -- have been investigated and discussed by the FBI, the press and, to a still limited extent, the military.

These “investigations” have been mere coverups. There has yet to be any Special Prosecutor appointed to determine the Bush regime’s roll in the mass torture, rape, and murder of prisoners in their gulags. If legitimate criminal investigations had been taken place, senior Bush administration officials already would have been indicted for war crimes. If the press in the US were truly independent of corporate corruption and the Bush regime’s political influence, every major daily paper in this country already would have called for Bush’s and Cheney’s impeachments. There would be equally strong calls in the nation’s daily newspapers for Bush Administration officials to be tried for crimes against humanity.

The Post also engages in homophobic rhetoric in its editorial.

Turning a report on prisoner detention into another excuse for Bush-bashing or America-bashing undermines Amnesty's legitimate criticisms of U.S. policies and weakens the force of its investigations of prison systems in closed societies.

The Washington Post’s use of the terms “Bush-basing” and “America-bashing” is outrageous. Equating completely fair, accurate, and legitimate criticism of brutal policies with violent assaults and murders of people on the basis of their sexual orientations and gender identities is viciously heterosexist. The Post owes all of its lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender readers an immediate apology for this bigoted rhetoric.

The use of the second term adds additional insult given the fact that every patriotic American is outraged at the Bush regime and its gulags.

The Post has abandoned the pretense of any kind of journalistic professionalism or editorial judgement. The Post is nothing more than a propaganda device for corporate interests, the GOP, and the Religious Right. There is no point in even buying the paper. It is a complete joke.