Today, Trump White House official Sebastian Gorka is “profiled” — targeted in a scope, is more like it — in the Washington Post, which, of course, is owned by Jeff Bezos, as most people seem to know, and whose Amazon Web Services, most people don’t seem to know, has developed a $600 million computing cloud for the CIA that serves the 17 agencies making up the “intelligence community.”

I just thought I’d throw that bit of interlocking syngergy out there. By comparison, Bezos bought the whole Post for $250 million, which makes does make it a cheap rag. Naturally, its tone is cheap, too.

I mean, seriously, Post:

For years, Gorka had labored on the fringes of Washington and the far edge of acceptable debate as defined by the city’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite.

Sebastian Gorka is a friend of mine, just to let you know. But forget about decency, Post. Have you no sense of… irony? I will overlook the nasty-trite shot of “fringes” for the moment, but… “acceptable debate”? “Acceptable”? What is ”acceptable debate” in journalism these days? I am afraid you are not a newspaper but a secretarial pool if you have outsourced that decision to “the city’s Republican and Democratic foreign policy elite.”

But we already knew that. Helpful hint: Maybe try writing a sentence without simultaneously bending your knee and it will come out better.

On the brighter side, I did find this neat summation of dissembling by presidents on Islam handy.

Only days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President George W. Bush insisted the terror strikes had “violated the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.”

“Islam is peace,” he told a nation still reeling from grief.

President Barack Obama sounded the same theme routinely during two terms in office.

Then:

Gorka has relentlessly championed the opposite view.

Lashings commence.

For him, the terrorism problem has nothing to do with repression, alienation, torture, tribalism, poverty, or America’s foreign policy blunders and a messy and complex Middle East.

“This is the famous approach that says it is all so nuanced and complicated,” Gorka said in an interview. “This is what I completely jettison.”

For him, the terror threat is rooted in Islam and “martial” parts of the Koran that he says predispose some Muslims to acts of terror.

“Anybody who downplays the role of religious ideology… they are deleting reality to fit their own world,” he said.

What a crazy old coot “him” must be. How could “him” say such things? Who cares if every authoritative Islamic text backs him up. Nut. Cue validating quotations from Postworld sources.

Most counterterrorism experts dismiss Gorka’s ideas as a dangerous oversimplification that could alienate Muslim allies and boost support for terrorist groups.

The cliché editor sure had a busy day.

“He thinks the government and intelligence agencies don’t know anything about radicalization, but the government knows a lot and thinks he’s nuts,” said Cindy Storer, a former CIA analyst who developed the agency models that trace the path from religious zealotry to violence.

Straight not through the local madrassa, no doubt.

Religious scholars are equally withering. “I can’t overstate how profoundly dangerous this is,” said Omid Safi, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at Duke University. “This is music to the ears of [the Islamic State]. This is what they seek.”

Oh really? I think this is not what they seek. However, great choice of “religious scholars,” there, Post. You picked a guy enlisted to try to stop liberal feminist Muslim Asra Nomani from speaking at Duke in 2015; someone who, on being confronted with appalling Pew findings showing that one-quarter of American Muslims, 18-29, believed that suicide bombings against civilian targets to defend Islam could could be justified, replied: “Given what’s happened in Iraq and Palestine, I would be shocked if there wasn’t discontent.”

We may assume the Post (read: foreign policy elite) wasn’t shocked that he wasn’t shocked. It’s all good.

I will skip down to the story’s final course, the obligatory, ritual slaughter of the reputation of another friend of mine, Frank Gaffney, over whom the MSM regularly abases itself with its disgraceful flogging. In this latest instance, the Post doesn’t even feign “fairness” by reaching for a tiny figleaf of an “elite” quotation. This is full-on Pravda reporting, introducing a most exemplary foreign policy expert with the stated fact that

Gaffney has long been politically radioactive in Washington.

Really? From where I sit in Washington — “fringes,” to you — there’s great respect, gratitude and admiration for this man. But I forgot. We’re all supposed to see the world through the noses of those “foreign policy elites” the Post loves so much. Still, it goes to show you can’t write and chew your forelock at the same time.

Here’s their real problem — the Post, the CIA, the “religious scholars,” the “foreign policy elites.” At the end of the piece, the Post “reports” on a study showing Americans are increasingly seeing through 15-plus years of #FakeNews about Islam hurled onto our front porches and flogged on our TVs. (Well, that’s the gist.) Seeking a scapegoat, the Post et al. turn to the “radioactive” “fringes” because, obviously, this increasing awareness about Islam has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam’s authoritative, totalitarian texts, or actually living through a dizzying era of Islamic expansionism marked by terrorism, war, the social breakdown in Europe and elsewhere, sharia totalitarianism, rampant dhimmitude, rape jihad, and the like.

No, the problem, the Post sums up, huffing, puffing, is that Americans are increasingly negative about Islam due to “dire warnings from the likes of Gaffney, Gorka and many others…”

The raw contempt on display is actually alarming — if, that is, society’s health is a concern.

Still, who says the news is all bad?