I think we've now gained pretty key insight into the psychosis that has gripped the Washington Post editorial board. Apparently it is their belief that one should not criticize leaders for doing so could undermine them.Wow is right.
The editorial focuses on criticisms of Wolfowitz’s nomination as president of the World Bank, and reads, in part:
People who care about this institution and its mission -- as many of Mr. Wolfowitz's detractors do -- should think carefully before they damage it by attacking its new boss. Criticism of Mr. Wolfowitz's agenda for the bank may be healthy once that agenda emerges. But preemptive condemnation because of the Iraq war is not.Complete disregard for the fact that most of those who have raised concerns over his appointment have done so not because of his role as an architect of the Iraq war, but because he has negligible qualifications—and that this nomination appears to be yet another example of a Bush loyalist being promoted into a position sans appropriate credentials as a reward for ideological fidelity, rather than out of any interest in selecting the best man or woman for the job. Instead, the WaPo editors attack the straw man of a blindly hateful liberal, who cannot dissociate Wolfowitz’s financial résumé from his foreign policy positions, in order to silence criticism.