Being Deborah Howell

I am concerned about Deborah Howell. While other bloggers are attacking her for spinning herself into delirium trying to defend The Washington Post Editorial Board, I on the other hand can see past the confusion and feel her pain. I have acquired this skill of sniffing out illness from miles away by watching Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Using Dr. Frist’s scientific technique I am able to deduce that Deborah Howell is insane.

Not possible you say? How can I make such a diagnosis without actually examining the patient you say? Well fear not I give you the following bizarre statements by this clearly disoriented ombudsman as proof of my diagnosis:

• "The Post editorially has supported the war, and the purpose of the editorial — headlined "A Good Leak" — was to support that leak as necessary to show that the president had reason to believe that Iraq was seeking uranium." (I have no idea what this sentence means.)
• "First, it’s important to remember that the articles and the editorial are looking back at June and July of 2003, seeking to add historical context to what we knew then. And we know a lot more now about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than we knew then." (Should everyone write about the past as if all facts that have come out since then are irrelevant? For example, should historians who write books about medieval Europe claim the earth is indeed flat since that was the view at the time?
• "The editorial board makes policy, and it is not my job to second-guess it." (What does an ombudsman do exactly?)
• "Editorials and news stories have different purposes. News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence." (Should editorials try to influence by repeating statements that they know to be false? Isn’t that called lying?)
• "Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said it is unlikely that the story would have influenced the editorial." (Clearly I need to also diagnose Fred Hiatt.)
• "The "supported" in the editorial refers to Wilson’s report that there was a trade meeting between officials of Iraq and Niger. Though news accounts have said there was no talk of uranium, the meeting was seen as corroboration that the Iraqis were seeking uranium, because that’s mostly what Niger has to export." (Is Deborah Howell a WMD expert? She said that she should not second-guess the editorial board. But is it in her mandate to defend the editorial board?)
• "Hiatt pointed to a British intelligence report that he said lent credence to the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium and to the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was critical of Wilson." (Huh? Is that the same British intelligence report that led to the 16 words in the State of The Union speech? Is the whole debate not about this? Isn’t this circular logic? I allege falsely that man has bitten dog, Deborah Howell says that man has indeed bitten dog because I have alleged man has bitten dog. Clearly the work of an insane person.)
• "Gellman and Linzer relied on later reports from commissions appointed by President Bush — the Silberman-Robb WMD commission and the Iraq Survey Group — and on their own reporting over three years from intelligence sources. Gellman said the commission and the ISG found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991." (Oh the horror. Someone actually using facts to do reporting. Howell clearly thinks Hiatt is not bound by facts? Does she think Hiatt is bound by the laws of physics?)
• "It would have been helpful if the editorial had put statements about Wilson in more context — especially the controversy over his trip and what he said." (Wow, you think that might have been helpful, Debbie?)
• "Reporting about national security and intelligence gathering is always fraught with fraught; it is a subject I will write about again." (I look forward to your writings. In the meantime, I will send the medication via mail. Stay indoors and don’t operate any heavy machinery. Good luck, unfortunate ombudsman. God speed!)

So, you see that clearly she is insane. So, Jane Hamsher, stop picking on this woman. She deserves our sympathy not our scorn. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. Shame Jane, shame on you for subjecting this woman to your acid pen. The damage you do to her in this weakened state may be irreversible.

 Next week, I have some free time between lunch and mid-day snack to do a diagnosis of Fred Hiatt. Stay tuned.