Who is Pam Platt trying to fool?

Normally we try to stay away from national issues, which get hashed about over and over again on other blogs and in the mainstream press, but when the national issues intersect with the Bluegrass State, sometimes we want to comment.

And when the intersection point is something as off-base as a column in Sunday's Courier-Journal, we can't help ourselves.

One of the left's leading complaints is that the mainstream press didn't do its job as the nation prepared for Operation Iraqi Freedom. The moonbats claim, outrageously so, that the press allowed the Bush administration to take the nation to war without doing its job to question the plan.

Honestly, we've never understood this claim. In fact, our recollection is vastly different. We struggle to recall one significant news outlet that supported the military action. In fact, we recall editorialists and columnists saying we needed to give the sanctions more time to work, that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to America or our allies, blah blah blah.

But over the past few years, more and more press outlets have been flogging themselves for not being more anti-war in the beginning. This past weekend, Pam Platt of the C-J joined the "let's beat ourselves up" crowd.

Who's she kidding? It's not physically possible for the mainstream press to have been any more anti-war than they were in the months and weeks leading up to the commencement of "shock and awe."

"Where were the news media when it came to ferreting out the truth during the build-up to the Iraq war," Platt says she is often asked.

Well, we know. They were out there saying, "Don't do it, don't do it."

Why ANYONE would question where the press was is beyond us.