Via Brad DeLong …  Something to keep in mind as you read the news stories about intelligence reports indicating that Iran had stopped its nuclear program some years ago:  When George Bush started rattling the saber at them over their nuke program…he knew there wasn’t one…

Robert Waldmann points out that corrupt Washington Post stenographers Peter Baker and Robin Wright know how to write an honest, factual lead paragraph–they just usually choose not to:

Robert’s Stochastic thoughts:

A Blow to Bush’s Tehran Policy

By Peter Baker and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; Page A01

President Bush got the world’s attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

Now that is what I call a lead*. The contrast couldn’t be more sharp with Baker’s recent effort to thoroughly inform all readers who get to paragraph 8 that Karl Rove is a liar about which I posted at the linked post…

Oh…and here’s the pathetic Washington Post headline that Waldmann is referring to:

Rove’s Version of 2002 War Vote Is Disputed

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 1, 2007; Page A06

Former White House aide Karl Rove said yesterday it was Congress, not President Bush, who wanted to rush a vote on the looming war in Iraq in the fall of 2002

As numerous people on the net have pointed out…Rove’s version is a flat-out lie.  To say it is "disputed" would, in any reality but a beltway journalist’s indicate that there is some way of honestly disputing it and there isn’t.  It’s classic, vapid, idiotic, brain dead  "he said, she said" journalism.  How about "Death Of George Washington Over 200 Years Ago Is Disputed"  What the fuck?