The Washington Post’s editorial board has reacted to the revocation of its press credentials by the Trump campaign with another anti-Trump screed. The editorial is a mixture of venom, paranoia, and illogic. It adds up to a smear.
The editors interpret Trump’s statement that “there’s something going on” with President Obama’s weak response to terrorism and his unwillingness to utter the words “radical Islamist terrorism” to mean that Obama wants terrorists to strike the U.S. By indulging in this non sequitur, the Post confirms Trump’s description of the paper as “phony” and “dishonest.”
Turning to Trump’s reaction to the Post’s dishonesty, the editors sniff:
Mr. Trump capped a day of assaulting fundamental liberal democratic values by announcing he would ban Post reporters from covering his campaign events. If this is his inclination now, imagine how he might wield the powers of the presidency.
I imagine that he might wield them the way the Obama administration has, which is why I am not inclined to vote for Trump. If Obama’s abuses didn’t give the Post heartburn, speculation about possible abuses by Trump shouldn’t.
Here’s a thought experiment along the lines of the one the Post’s editors came up with: If the Washington Post is using its influence to smear candidate Donald Trump through false statements like the one in this headline and in its latest editorial rant, imagine how it might wield its influence to smear Trump if he becomes president.
NOTE: For more on the Post’s latest smear of Trump, see my comment on this post by John.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.