Now, I actually listen to talk radio from time to time, and I cannot recall ever hearing one of the conservative talk hosts "echo(ing) many of the same viewpoints" of the wretched Bedell or any other member of the Angry Left. For that matter, I cannot imagine any member of the Angry Left finding himself in accord with conservative talk radio. How does one explain the Post's analysis, which is contradicted so starkly by the Post's news report? Does anyone edit the newspaper today?
My explanation is that some journalists are actually very pious people. They have a deep faith in their heroes, and the Angry Left remains revered in these journalists' trusting minds. They see a California pothead who shares Van Jones' suspicion that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11 attempt to gun down Pentagon guards, and they want to change the subject. They change the topic to "right-wing militias." Unsatisfied with that act of legerdemain, they bring in talk radio and TV talk shows. It all has happened before.
On Nov. 22, 1963, an American communist, Lee Harvey Oswald, who admired the Cuban Revolution, gunned down JFK in Dallas, and the same kind of pious journalists caught gibbering in the Post the other day fastened the nation's attention not on left-wing violence, but on right-wing critics of Kennedy living otherwise-peaceful lives in Dallas. The violent potential of militant leftists never was pondered, though America was about to enter into a decade of protest that witnessed leftists burning down university buildings, bombing ROTC facilities and otherwise committing acts of violence on behalf of peace and a better world.
Thus, John Patrick Bedell, a lifelong member of the Angry Left, gets himself killed while assaulting the Pentagon, and the pious journalists at The Washington Post lump the poor guy in with right-wing militias. It is shoddy journalism. Much worse, it is a shocking act of disrespect for the dead.