You know what? I think Kerry and his team show more respect to Allawi by suggesting that he should be able to speak independently. Kerry is saying, "our support for Allawi is not based on his painting a rosy picture of Iraq and therefore supporting our electoral plans. We're more interested in the truth, and we will support a leader who tells it."

My letter to the editor and ombudsman:

To the Washington Post:
In this critical time for our country, Jim Vanderhei and your political editor chose to use some space in your front section on September 15th to examine the issue of John Kerry mis-naming the Green Bay Packers football stadium. A few paragraphs were devoted to quoting the President and his campaign mocking their rival.

I love the Packers and do realize that regional issues are important in a campaign. However, we have a President who, in three different attempts during a nationally televised speech, and later in responses to press questions, could not pronounce the name of the Iraqi prison where the mismanagement of the Iraq war reached a shameful point.

Even in the unlikely case that some Wisconsin voters consider Mr. Kerry's slip a reason to support his opponent, why is the Post using its precious reporting space to document such a trivial issue?

Feel free to join me. ombudsman@washpost.com letters@washpost.com (I couldn't find an email address for Mr. Vandehei)

What upsets, pisses off, and enrages me is the fact that Congressman Ed Schrock actively sought to deny gay couples any benefit to remaining faithful to one another -- while he cheated on his wife. No, said Ed -- there will be no rewards for those who engage in homosexual sex and remain monogamous. There will be rewards only for those who engage in secret homosexual sex, breaking their heterosexual vows.

No, the voices of protest weren't lonely. Yes, a paper has an obligation to print all the facts, even if it doesn't think the outcome of the debate will change (can you believe Kurtz even tried that argument?). No, the complexity of a reporter's work is not a reason not to print it (as one letter writer put it, "what are they paying you for, anyway?). No, it isn't true that the war was inevitable.

And yes, that was one sorry-ass piece of self-"reflection."

Commenter Dan Perreton correctly points out that it is the WaPo editors, not Kurtz himself, who justified their decisions with the "it wouldn't have changed anything" defense.

And with all the hoopla around the British arrests, ABC finally reported that some of that was compromised by the leak.

Sheesh.

Here's what I wish had happened at the Unity conference: I wish that the journalists had remained as neutral as possible during the candidates speeches (and I acknowledge that I myself might have snickered during the sovereignty nonsense), giving neither a reception more favorable than the other.

Then I wish they had made a point of reporting, in as prominent a way as possible, what was said, including Bush's astonishing lack of preparedness. Those who say the media has spent far too much effort on being "balanced" are correct, but I still say it serves no long-term purpose for them to be unprofessional in service to either side.

I'll cop to being "high minded" :-)

ETA: Response (after the break)

So I have a hard time understanding some of the defense of Bush -- and his handling of Iraq -- from people whom I would otherwise expect to have a more balanced perspective. For example...