Unclear on the facts

The Washington Post has taken some heat lately for never acknowledging that WMDs were never found in Iraq. The popular Romanesko blog linked to this Washington City Paper story:

All of it would have the ring of authority if the Post would simply say, “We're sorry for backing an ill-conceived war in the first place.” Other publications—notably the New Republic and the New York Times—have acknowledged their gullibility in swallowing administration propaganda about Iraq's weapons programs.

The Post's editorialists bought the White House line in full, yet they haven't gone the mea culpa route. They flirted with accountability in an October 2003 editorial, which reads in part: “Were we wrong? The honest answer is: We don't yet know.”

Well, that was two and a half years ago. Do we know enough now to admit the mistake? When asked that question, Hiatt responded, “I'm not getting into that subject...I guess what we have to say about that I would say in an editorial.”

Ironically, though, this chart claims to show a timeline of the Washington Post's opinion ... yet somehow jumps nearly two years in a war that's been in the works for about three years. What kind of timeline skips two-thirds of the time, altogether? (If you try to read the chart, you'll likely have to click in the bottom-right corner to zoom in so it's large enough to be legible.)

Meanwhile, The Washington Post is trying to figure out what happened to those weapons of mass destruction. I seem to recall the Boston Globe offered a good timeline; the Post is a little more fragmented. Yesterday's story offers some dates. The writer could have made it more clear that Bush spoke just two days after civilians reported the trailers had nothing at all to do with WMDs; the dates are separated by two paragraphs. It's several paragraphs after that that we find out in the intervening day, a DIA report contradicted the civilian report of the day before. Today's story in the Post mimics the same flaws. This, thinks MeTheSheeple, is just some flawed writing. It's tough for readers to pay much attention to mid-2003 dates, but easier with "a day earlier" verbiage to support the writing.