In his morning's editorial, "War critics may be ultimate patriots," Rich Perlberg presented the earth-shaking idea that it's OK to dissent. In fact,
Too often, those who support the president have found it too easy to disparage the loyalty, rather than the arguments, of those who question the war's premise or its success.According to the editorial, Rogers didn't back away from this stance:
Rogers himself has suggested in the past that war critics in Congress are possibly aiding the enemy.
"Words matter," he said.Yet the paper doesn't push Rogers on this contradiction. Clarify it for us, Mr. Perlberg: does Rogers think he's "possibly aiding the enemy" now? If not, what's changed?
It's not clear that the paper is accepting any responsibility for its earlier editorial stance in support of the war, either. Does Mr. Perlberg indeed think that the media has failed to ask tough questions?
If so, does he plan to start now?