Watch: Kellyanne Conway Slices and Dices the Washington Post for Their Glowing Eulogy of Baghdadi

Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway speaks to reporters outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, Friday, Feb. 22, 2019. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

White House advisor Kellyanne Conway was just as disgusted as everyone else was over the fawning headline and eulogy the Washington Post gave ISIS leader Abu Bakker al-Baghdadi.

As my colleague Elizabeth Vaughn noted, WaPo described Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar” instead of the murdering rapist and terrorist leader that he was.

Appearing on Fox News with Martha MacCallum, Conway laid into WaPo with a bit of righteous fury behind her.

“What was this yesterday from ‘The Washington Post,’ this nonsense?” Conway asked MacCallum. “The media is angry at the president of the United States for getting rid of the world’s worst terrorist. It’s like, who is he to interfere while we’re trying to impeach him?”

“They went to — the magnitude and the duplicity yesterday of trying to — trying to undercut the commander-in-chief making the order and — and honestly doing something that helped the whole country and the world, freedom-loving people everywhere,” Conway continued. “This man was a murderer, a rapist, a terrorist. He was a ringleader, a ruthless terrorist. He deserves a place in hell.”

Conway wasn’t done. By the time the end of the interview rolled around, she had a suggestion for WaPo on how to write its headlines with a little more accuracy when it came to our sworn enemies.

“And I would ask ‘The Washington Post’, close your eyes and pretend that al-Baghdadi worked in the Trump White House and then go rewrite your obituary. I bet you wouldn’t be as kind.”

To be sure, the headline from what is supposed to be one of the most respected journalistic outlets in the country was one of the most disgusting displays of Trump Derangement Syndrom ever seen. No respect should be given to Baghdadi, who tortured, killed, raped, and subjugated everything he could.

What WaPo effectively did was lend sympathy and reverence to someone taken out by the Trump administration. I get that people are tribal and take sides, especially in politics, but we should all be able to agree that it’s good when our sworn enemies fall, especially when our enemies are people like Baghdadi.

What really grabs you is Conway’s last phrase, however. I don’t see it as that big of a stretch to believe that if Baghdadi was in any way friendly with Trump, then we’d see damning headlines about who he is and what he’s done. The media has become more obsessed with hating Trump than having any modicum of sense or professionalism. We’ve never had a better example than the Washington Post’s headline.