I Wonder Where Howard Kurtz Gets His Bias

Looks like it's the Washington Post op-ed page. After an insulting and condescending commentary you have to read to believe, here's the clincher:

I don't give her a pass on her performance as national security adviser, and I hold her at least partly responsible for the lies the administration told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Boxer was right to hold her feet to the fire. I can't applaud Rice when she pursues policies that I believe make us more vulnerable, not safer.

But I do recognize her achievement in confounding expectations that were long overdue to be confounded. And now maybe we can begin to see black women through a lens that's not colored or distorted, but crystal clear.

And through that lens this clown clearly sees a dangerous liar.

Once again, what did the Administration lie about, exactly? Even if you believe that the WMDs were not in Iraq, that Iraq had no WMD programs, that Saddam Hussein was an earnest little beaver laboring mightily to comply with UN resolutions and international law, what makes you think the Administration a) knew that this was the case and b) decided to tell baldfaced lies about it HEADING INTO AN ELECTION?

George Bush is either a genius or a buffoon, but he can't be both simultaneously. Neither can Condi Rice.