Opinion: Why does The Washington Post have a soft spot for terrorists?

The Washington Post has done it again. Previously, they referred to the former ISIS leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as an “austere religious scholar” in a headline reporting his death. Like Soleimani, he died from a coordinated U.S. military strike.

Following the death of Qassem Soleimani, The Washington Post referred to him as “Iran’s most revered military leader,” a description completely tone-deaf to his militant history.

He is responsible for 17% of all U.S. military deaths from the Iraq war and was behind arming and training several terrorist groups around the Middle East.

Soleimani supported Yemen’s Houthis rebels, Islamic Jihad and Hamas in Palestine as well as the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and also propped up Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria. Therefore, Soleimani is no “revered” general. He caused more death and destruction than Osama Bin Laden, yet, that becomes second to The Washington Post’s disdain for Trump, who they continuously paint as the villain.

If the angle lessens the victories of the Trump administration, the headline is palatable for their publication. But of course, like with Baghdadi, they were rightfully called out. 

It is a big tell when they caved to early pressure and made edits on a deeply deceptive headline.

The headline that read, “Breaking News: Airstrike at Baghdad airport kills Iran’s most revered military leader, Qassem Soleimani, Iraqi state television reports,” now reads, “In major escalation, American strike kills top Iranian commander in Baghdad.”

Of course, the headline and article still portray the strike on Soleimani as a grave misstep by the Trump administration. The Washington Post took quotes from former Obama administration officials like Ilan Goldenberg, who unironically said, “I highly doubt the Trump administration has thought out the next step or knows what to do now to avoid a regional war.”

As if anyone should hear critiques from an official who backed paying off Iran, which only helped spread its’ sphere of influence in the Middle East.

On the bright side, it is significant that members of the general public hold the media to account when they mislead and milk a story for its political capital.