Cut/Paste

Laura Rozen wrote an interesting post yesterday on the WaPo Cheney article. The short version is that the article was probably held until the "dead time" of summer and that it had an editorial hatchet taken to it as well.

If you go read it I think you'll see what she's talking about. There are parts of the story that seem to be seriously contradictory to the rest. The first time I read it (before see Rozen's piece), I had to reread a couple of paragraphs because they just didn't seem to make sense. Give it a read and see if you notice it.

Here's a sample of the disconnect:

Cheney is not, by nearly every inside account, the shadow president of popular lore. Bush has set his own course, not always in directions Cheney preferred. The president seized the helm when his No. 2 steered toward trouble, as Bush did, in time, on military commissions. Their one-on-one relationship is opaque, a vital unknown in assessing Cheney's impact on events. The two men speak of it seldom, if ever, with others. But officials who see them together often, not all of them admirers of the vice president, detect a strong sense of mutual confidence that Cheney is serving Bush's aims.

This graf is not only incomprehensible, it's completely contradicts the rest of the story. When I first read it, I remember scratching my head and then ignoring it (before having read Rozen's suspicions). Do you think there is a bit of a war going on between reporters and editors?