toilet.jpg

How else are we to explain the editorial decisions to propel Byron York's inept and hapless crayon scribblings yesterday, followed by the propagandistic, defamatory rantings of longtime Barbara Comstock sister in crime  Victoria Toensing today?  Barbara Comstock currently serves as the PR flack for the Libby defense team, and has been a key fundraiser for his defense.

We'll be getting into more substantive dissections of the lies and diversions propelled by these political campaigning players, but for the moment, I'd like to call everyone's attention to the fact that the Washington Post has made the decision to be the outlet for the Libby PR machine led by Barbara Comstock.

This decision has encompassed the work of both the editorial pages (as amply displayed this weekend), and, in the past, of the news division, under the byline of right wing smear merchant Steno Sue Schmidt.   Steno Sue, you may recall, provided the original megaphone propelling the lie that Joe Wilson had been sent to Niger by his wife, Valerie Plame, a claim put to rest as false by testimony in Libby's trial when the INR memo was presented into evidence.

Today the Washington Post chose not to offer an alternate editorial voice to balance Byron York's piece from yesterday, but instead, decided to go all in with a 2,200+ word opus of mass deception by hit piece flack hack Toensing, attacking Patrick Fitzgerald and Joe Wilson personally and falsely. 

In the print version, the Washington Post chose to highlight the column with a half page graphic depicting Patrick Fitzgerald, Joe Wilson, "The Media," Ari Fleischer, Richard Armitage and the" Department of Justice" in mocked up mug shots.  In case any readers lacked the stomach to get through Toensing's flying fecal word fog, the Post no doubt wanted to be sure everyone took the point, even those merely scanning past the Sunday Outlook section.  The graphic itself is defamatory, above and beyond the insubstantial right wing rantings of the column itself.

As I've said, others will address more directly the lack of merit of the Toensing article itself (UPDATE:  Larry Johnson delivers), but the first point to take is the Post's choice to serve as the sewage pipeline for Wilson and Fitzgerald smears. 

Why?   

Could it be that members of the editorial board of the Post want to further the idea that Libby, no matter what the jury may decide, has been an "innocent victim" of a prosecutor with an alleged "political agenda?" 

Can it be that the endgame of the current political campaign against Fitzgerald, coordinated by Comstock and propelled by the Post, is to deflect attention from the nefarious acts of a corrupt administration and a complicit media establishment to sell the country on the Iraq invasion on false pretenses? 

What might the Washington Post in particular have to gain by such a public relations cover up?   

As the trial draws to a close, you can be sure this element of the story will gain more focused attention.