OUT ON A LIMB

WashPo takes yet another bold, brave editorial stance:

How, then, to choose on Iraq? Some voters may reasonably conclude that Mr. Bush is more likely to stick to the essential mission of ensuring that Iraq becomes a victory and not a defeat in the war with Islamic extremists and terrorists. For others, Mr. Kerry may seem better matched to the formidable reconstruction job still to be done. The Bush administration's record of failure on the ground argues for a change in management. The question not entirely answered by Mr. Kerry's campaign is whether he would be as determined to see the mission through.

This, mind you, is the conclusion of their compare-and-contrast.

"The mission." What, exactly, is the mission? Wouldn't the Washington Post better serve the public by putting their resources into an attempt to define our "mission" in Iraq? After all, many people think our "mission" is to get the hell out before we're completely fucked.

This "on the other hand" reporting is really getting on my nerves.
| |