Eric Boehlert, author of Lapdogs, accuses the Washington Times of running a “completely manufactured” story about how some Democrats were dismissing the killing of Zarqawi as a stunt Bush pulled to improve his poll numbers. The Washington Times’s Amy Fagan wrote:

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.
“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. “Iraq is still a mess — get out.”

Looks like an accurate characterization to me. Where’s the problem? Here’s Boehlert:

Note more than half that sentence is not a direct quote from Stark, rather it’s the Times telling readers that Stark was supposedly making a connection between Zarqawi and Iraqi civilians. Readers also have to take the Times at its word that the “This” mentioned by Stark is in reference to the Zarqawi killing.

Anyone want to bet that by paraphrasing Stark’s words, Fagan actually made him sound less offensive? Boehlert continues:

But even if you’re inclined to believe the newspaper on both points, where’s the stunt quote that’s the basis of the headline and the lede? Stark’s “cover Bush’s [rear]” quote in no way suggests he thinks the killing was a stunt, some sort of orchestrated event designed solely to divert attention.

Actually, that’s exactly what I take him to mean. I’d imagine most people would agree. Finally, Boehlert writes:

And where are the Democrats plural who think the killing was a stunt. The Times’ headline and opening sentence clearly report that “Democrats” think the killing was a stunt, and it’s the stunt angle that made the story so hot. Yet the best the Times can do is print a cut-up quote from a single Democrat who doesn’t even say the killing was a stunt? Pathetic.

I’ll give this one to Boehlert — and, as he points out in an update, the Times toned down the language for the print version. But that doesn’t mean the initial story was “completely manufactured” — in fact, one Democrat did ludicrously propose that the killing of Zarqawi was undertaken to “cover Bush’s [rear].” Seems like a legitimate story to me.