Why Did The Washington Post Axe Dan Froomkin and Give Paul Wolfowitz a Column?

Just one day after firing Dan Froomkin -- one of only a few voices willing to offer insightful, well-researched criticism of both the Bush and Obama administrations -- the Washington Post did something even more outrageous: It gave Paul Wolfowitz a platform to criticize the president's Iran policy.

Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense who famously claimed American forces in Iraq would be "welcomed as liberators," urged Obama today to abandon his "almost neutral" approach to Iran in an opinion piece called " 'No Comment' Is Not an Option."

"Coming from America," Wolfowitz writes, "silence is itself a comment -- a comment in support of those holding power and against those protesting the status quo."

Ever eager to disguise his foamy-mouthed imperialism with a candy-coated benevolence, Wolfowitz would be wise to understand the implications of his comments: The assertion that the United States must take a firm stance on the Iran issue carries the paternalistic assumption that the demonstrators somehow "need" our support - that their actions are void without Uncle Sam's wink and thumbs-up. Wolfowitz's position essentially robs Iranians of their agency, and its arrogance reinforces Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's argument that the West is acting behind the scenes.

Wolfowitz also manages some pretty egregious historical blundering. "It would be a cruel irony," he writes, "if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom." Strange. Isn't that exactly what happened in 1953 when the CIA helped oust a democratically elected leader who wanted to nationalize Iranian oil?

Still, Wolfowitz is only half the problem. What's more disturbing is the Post's erasure of a journalistic voice whose criticisms transcended shallow party affiliations. By axing Froomkin (for dubious reasons), the paper has effectively announced its support for a series of rotten Bush-era policy leftovers. Wolfowitz is simply among the stinkiest of these.

As for Froomkin, he will be fine. The steady failure of the Obama administration to rethink Bush doctrine, coupled with Froomkin's relentless ability to cut through political doublespeak, will make him valuable elsewhere. It's the Post, whose delusions of impartiality are like holes in an already leaky hull, that should be gnawing at its fingernails. By eliminating objectivity in the name of objectivity, it has dealt a serious blow to its own legitimacy.