I love the Post but why isn't this story on the front page instead of being buried in A13? It's a succinct rundown of the claims made in the SOTU speech. Something readers would need to see. I just don't get the editorial decision making sometimes, even at my favorite paper.

You're never supposed to bury a great graf at the end of a story (because, from an editor's perspective, you should always be able to chop the final 1/4 of a story and still have the essence retained) but the final ones in the piece mentioned are too well-written not to save and quote:

Bush ended his address with a stirring image that "every great movement of history comes to a point of choosing." But then he said, "The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others."

This is historically misleading. At the end of World War II, the United States allowed the division of Europe between Soviet and Western spheres, though it drew the line at giving up West Berlin. And the United States permitted the Soviet Union's grabbing of large parts of other countries -- or even whole countries, such as the Baltic states.

Bush should know this. In May, he flew to Latvia and declared that the United States bore some blame for "the division of Europe into armed camps" -- what he called "one of the greatest wrongs of history."

Now that's journalism.