Washington Post “reporter” Dana Milbank’s rarely concealed editorial bias is no secret to conservatives. So, the fact that he trashed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in his column last week is not surprising.

However, all non-partisan accounts point to a cordial discussion between Rumsfeld and members of the House, including several Democrats.

Here’s an excerpt from Milbank’s piece:

“Two dozen members of the House Armed Services Committee had not yet had their turn to question Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at yesterday's hearings when he decided he had had enough. At 12:54, he announced that at 1 p.m. he would be taking a break and then going to another hearing in the Senate. ‘We're going to have to get out and get lunch and get over there,’ he said. When the questioning continued for four more minutes, Rumsfeld picked up his briefcase and began to pack up his papers. The chairman, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), apologized to his colleagues for a rather ‘unusual’ situation. With the Bush administration asking Congress this month to write checks for half a trillion dollars for the Pentagon, you might think the secretary of defense would set an accommodating posture on Capitol Hill. But, to paraphrase Rumsfeld's remark in December about the Army, you go to budget hearings with the defense secretary you have, not the defense secretary you might want or wish to have at a later time.”

However, the reason Rumsfeld had to leave before 1pm was not due to arrogance. It was because he had a scheduled meeting with the Senate at 1pm and still had to walk over to the chamber.

The BBC’s Katty Kay echoed Milbank’s sentiment on “Meet the Press” this weekend, adding, “look at Donald Rumsfeld this week. If ever we saw Donald Rumsfeld back in fighting form this week and giving everybody up on Capitol Hill, Republicans and Democrats alike, a hard time, this was it: refusing to answer questions about Iraq, refusing even really to be very courteous up on Capitol Hill.”

In both cases, the reporters offer partisan analysis without substance.

Could his article have been in response to Rumsfeld’s Washington Post critique during his testimony? For the sake of full disclosure, shouldn’t Milbank have mentioned the criticism in his article? More importantly, his editors should have insisted on such transparency.

Milbank’s background is in opinion journalism with the New Republic. It’s common practice for those in the mainstream media to recruit upcoming liberal writers and place them in what passes for unbiased reporting. The New York Times just recently picked up Nicholas Confessore from the hyper-liberal Washington Monthly.

Would the NYT or WP hire someone of the same pedigree from a conservative publication? The evidence, like their impartiality, is lacking.