Jamal Khashoggi and the Washington Post, Part Four

With Election Day upon us, the Washington Post is ramping up its anti-Trump hysteria. Today’s paper includes stories with these headlines (paper edition):

“Full Trumpism: President’s apocalyptic attacks reach new level of falsehood.”

“Strategy of racial attacks spreads.”

Yellow journalism is alive and well at the Post. So is purple prose.

Its obsession with the election notwithstanding, the Post is still ripping Saudi Arabia because its regime killed Jamal Khashoggi who, at the end of his tangled career, wrote opinion pieces for the Post. Thus, today’s edition reports that the Saudi’s practice of abducting critics “goes back decades.”

No doubt. But this means such abduction, along with related brutality, was practiced by the regime[s] Khashoggi participated in and strongly backed — a fact the Post neglects to mention. It was only after Khashoggi’s faction lost a power struggle to another faction that he became a dissident.

I understand why the Post wants to keep banging the drum over the killing of one its own. Trying to cause the U.S. to reverse its foreign policy in the Middle East over one more killing in the region seems rather ambitious and, from the point of view of U.S. interests, misguided. But the Post has every right to try.

I just wish it would be more honest about the man in whose memory it seeks the major reversal of U.S. policy.