But I Read It In the Papers! (Part 2)

Yesterday I commented on the NY Times article reporting on the Iraq war debate in Congress here. Another major newspaper also held forth on the debates. The Washington Post article was slightly different as to tone and content.

House Republicans took the offensive, repeatedly asserting that Democrats have adopted a "defeatist" policy of retreat that would embolden international terrorists and imperil national security. Their position was bolstered by a 74-page document drafted by the White House and distributed by the Pentagon, replete with talking points, quotations and timelines to back administration policy. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) called the document "an affront to the American people."

...GOP senators wanted a vote on language recently drafted by Kerry calling for nearly all U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by the year's end. But Kerry, his party's 2004 presidential nominee, surprised the Republicans by declining to offer the language as an amendment to a defense authorization bill, after colleagues had urged him to consider possible revisions.

To force a debate and a vote, McConnell, the GOP whip, introduced Kerry's language as his own, knowing that all Senate Republicans and most Democrats would vote against it. Democrats objected when Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) called the measure "Kerry's amendment." Kerry said the maneuver led to "a fibbing, fictitious vote."

The Senate voted 93 to 6 to reject the amendment. The six Democrats who voted against killing it were Kerry, Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Russell Feingold (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). [Emphasis added]

First of all, WaPo did clarify the origin and contents of that Pentagon prep book, something the NY Times failed to do.

Next, WaPo described the GOP tactic with respect to the Kerry amendment in greater detail and quoted Senator Kerry's response to the tactic, which I thought a fair bit of reporting without going overboard.

Finally, WaPo listed those who still voted for the Kerry amendment in the midst of all the partisan maneuvering. If nothing else, it gave those of us in the liberal community some idea of those Democrats who really are trying to do their jobs.

All in all, the Washington Post report did a much better job covering those debates, which is somewhat surprising, given that the editorial board has been conscientiously carrying water for the current regime.

Here's the thing: I don't necessarily want a more liberal media, I just want a fair, objective one. If the press does its job properly, I believe the American people (well, at least 67% of them) will figure out just what the hell is going on and will act accordingly. It's an election year. We need a decent press.