Oh, that's where my ethics went.

Funny thing about ethics, they're often in the last place you look.

I'm really glad to see this, though. The Washington Post should not be involved in supporting public campaigns of the government they are supposed to be reporting on.

And, I do really like the clever construction of this event. We start with a remembrance of 9-11, and then walk to a pro-Iraq war rally. Get it? It's a metaphor of passage from our grief on 9-11, walking forward through time to a rally support the Iraq war. A very clever construction of the connection of 9-11 and Iraq.(which we know to be totally false.)

The Washington Post announced yesterday that it will back out of a controversial co-sponsorship of a Pentagon-organized event next month to remember the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and support the troops in Iraq.

The newspaper notified the Department of Defense that it would no longer donate public service advertising space to help promote the Freedom Walk, an event planned for Sept. 11. At the conclusion of the procession from the Pentagon to the Mall, there will be a performance by country star Clint Black, who recorded the song "I Raq and Roll."

"As it appears that this event could become politicized, .....

"Post news employees are subject to disciplinary action for participating in political activities that may be perceived as revelatory of personal opinions or bias," said a resolution passed earlier yesterday by the leadership of The Post unit of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. "The Washington Post itself should be held to the same high standard. . . . The Guild supports The Post's stated intention of honoring the nation's veterans, including those who have served in Iraq. But the Post undermines this goal by lending its support to a political event that links the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to the war in Iraq -- a link that The Post, in its reporting, has shown to be false." ...

"There was some criticism," he said, "but just as important was the fact that there seemed to be an increased possibility that the event could become politicized."

And lastly, from the end of the same article, what the hell does this mean?

"We were counting on The Post, who seemed to understand that this is really not anything but a Freedom Walk, to let the D.C. area know about this wonderful opportunity," Barber said. (Allison Barber, deputy assistant secretary of defense for communications)

"Really not anything but a Freedom Walk"? "Wonderful opportunity?" What the hell does that mean? Just how far into Newspeak have we gone?