The editorial board of the Washington Post continues to be a mysterious group, making strange arguments that are detached from the paper's own reporting. Indeed, the gap between the quality of the WaPo's news division and editorial division is greater than at any major newspaper in the country.The Post's unwavering editorial support for the war in Iraq has been well-established, but today, the WaPo outdoes itself with an editorial that seems to reject reality altogether.The initial media coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.Over the last several days, we've learned that both the democratically-elected prime minister and the spokesperson for the Iraqi government support Obama's withdrawal timeline of 2010. Maliki, in fact, did so, by name, without prompting. But the Post still doesn't believe Iraq's principal political leaders are on board with Obama's policy.And why does the WaPo editorial board continue to deny what is plainly true?