WaPo ignores key Iraq responsibilty story

The NYT published on 08-19
a most important and significant report
on former weapons inspector David Kay's 08-18 testimony
before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The article is extraordinarily worthwhile.
Here are the leading four grafs:

A former Bush administration official who led the fruitless postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq told Congress on Wednesday that the National Security Council led by Condoleezza Rice had botched intelligence information before the war and was "the dog that did not bark" over Iraq's weapons program.

In uncharacteristically caustic remarks about his former colleagues, the weapons inspector, David Kay, said the National Security Council had failed to protect President Bush from faulty prewar intelligence and had left Secretary of State Colin L. Powell "hanging out in the wind" when he tried to gather intelligence before the war about Iraq's weapons programs.

"Where was the N.S.C?" Dr. Kay asked, suggesting that the president had come to depend too heavily on information supplied by Ms. Rice, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, and that the president needed to reach out to others for national security information.

"Every president who has been successful, at least that I know of, in the history of this republic, has developed both informal and formal means of getting checks on whether people who tell him things are in fact telling him the whole truth," Dr. Kay told the Senate intelligence committee at a hearing called to discuss the findings of the Sept. 11 commission.

Why, in God's name, has the Washington Post
totally ignored this story?
Two possible reasons:

1. They wish to maintain the belief
   that it's all the fault of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/CIA.
   
   
2. The NSA, for whom the NSC staff works,
   is an African-American woman,
   thus protected against any serious allegations,
   no matter how well deserved,
   of incompetence.
   Further,
   the key NSC staff members dealing with the Middle East
   are, surprise, Jewish.
   Musn't point the finger at them.
   That would be anti-Semitic, you see.
   

I fully recognize that some will find the above remarks offensive.
My defense is that the WaPo has, prima facie,
failed to report what it should have reported,
and that the urge in the newsroom to protect politically correct groups
is a matter of fact, not speculation.
Of course, I do not know that that was the explanation in this case,
just that it is plausible.

In any case, the remarks in the article itself
are clearly worthy of wider dissemination.