Herewith a little peek into exactly why the editorial board of the Washington Times has zero credibility.

On Sunday, in a controversial column, Washington Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell slammed the Post’s news operation for a tilt toward president-elect Barack Obama—in news stories, in photographs, and in a failure to dig deeper on certain matters.

One of those matters, in the words of Howell, was this: “The Post did nothing on Obama’s acknowledged drug use as a teenager.” Though I think Howell has been a great ombudsman, chiding the paper for failing to investigate the teenage drug use of any full-grown man amounts to a brain fart.

Now look at how the Washington Times editorial people are playing the Howell column. As a perch to denounce the liberal media conspiracy, of course. Check out how they paraphrase the bit about drugs: “The column also says that the president-elect deserved more scrutiny of his past relationships with Tony Rezko and his admitted drug use.”

“Admitted drug use”—sounds pretty powerful, pretty damning. Of course, if you do the responsible thing, and add in “teenage,” that takes away a bit of the sting. But the Washington Times editorial board, of course, doesn’t have time for such qualifiers. Admitted drug use. Better to leave that notion hanging there—the notion that, hey, perhaps this guy has been using drugs all along, that he pops ‘cid before he hits the Senate floor, that he gives his best speeches when high, that a quick snort or two keeps him going on the 24-7 campaign slog, that he can’t relax at night without eight or nine scotches….That’s what admitted drug use suggests.

But if any group of people is qualified to make such a judgment, it’s gotta be the people at the WaTi edit board. Nehi Grape—that’s the edgiest those people have ever gotten.