The spirit of Judith Miller is alive and well at the Washington Post, which on Wednesday (10/26/05) used its editorial page to mislead its readers in support of its pro-war position. Although a recent poll shows that more than 80% of Iraqis strongly oppose our occupation, the Post wrote that “Millions of Iraqis [that Saddam] oppressed continue to be grateful for their liberation.”

That’s a highly deceptive statement at best. While millions may be “grateful for their liberation,” there are many more who wish we’d never entered their country. More to the point, the vast majority of Iraqis want us out – now. Polls show that the American and Iraqi people have a common goal: ending the occupation.

The Post’s sentence is a Rumsfeldian piece of craftsmanship, carefully designed to mislead without being demonstrably false. Do “millions of Iraqis” retain gratitude for the invasion? Possibly, but then "millions of Americans" are Muslims. An Islamist could say the following – “Three years after 9/11 many Americans give praise and thanks to Allah” – and technically not be lying. The Post’s statement is no less deceptive.

Misleading phrasing isn’t the only thing that’s shameful about this editorial. After agreeing that US casualties are tragic, they add: "That the totals are relatively small compared with those of previous U.S. wars, or the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have died, does not change that.” Then why mention it? Just to introduce a grotesque calculus: There haven’t been so many casualties, when you think about it, so it’s not such a disaster after all.

After listing some dubious “achievements” of the occupation, there’s a backhanded reference to war opponents who “glibly” describe the war as a “catastrophe” (got a better word?) “Glib” is an adjective better applied to this piece of writing. Merriam-Webster defines “glibness” as “showing little forethought or preparation,” “lacking depth and substance,” “superficial, smooth, slippery,” and “marked by ease and fluency in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful.” Editors, edit thyselves.

The editors parrot the Bush line: “… one of the greatest dangers of Iraq is that domestic disenchantment with the mission will lead to a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops, a step that would greatly increase the carnage and hand a major victory to this country's foremost enemy, the Islamic extremist movement headed by al Qaeda.” In other words, do as we say “or the terrorists win.” No proof of the assertion, of course, or refutation of the obvious observation: This war has been both a great propaganda victory and a terrific recruiting tool for the terrorists.

And how will we know when withdrawal is not “premature”? They don’t say, any more than the Administration does. We’ve come to a bizarre stage in history when a justification is required for ending war, rather than for continuing it. It’s possible for reasonable people to have differing opinions on the issue of withdrawal, but when language is used to mislead and confuse – by a newspaper, no less – that’s not reasonable.

The Post has shown that, even as the Administration’s matrix of war-related lies collapses around them, there are journalists willing to continue playing the government’s game. Here’s a suggestion for the Post’s editorial board, and for all others who defend this war on the grounds that we’re doing it for “grateful Iraqis.” Since we care about their feelings so much, let’s discuss how best to give them what the polls say they want so strongly – an end to the occupation. Then they – and the American people – will have some reason to be grateful.

R. J. Eskow writes the Night Light blog.