Lets take a closer look at the first few paragraphs:

"A broad survey of U.S. troops in Iraq by a Pentagon-funded newspaper found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist."

"A broad survey" -- There are approximately 116,000 troops in Iraq, of which 1,935 (1%) took the survey. If a Washington Post survey showed that 1% of the people thought that Fox news broadcasters were smarter than Washington newspaper reporters would they report that as a "broad survey" of America?

"...found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low" -- Half of these described their perception that the unit’s morale was low. Of those surveyed, 34% (658 troops) rated their morale as low or very low. Yet 48% of those surveyed believed the number to be higher than it actually was. In other words, most troops misjudge their fellow servicemember’s morale level. One reason is there is no agreed upon definition of what the word "morale" even means.

"...their training as insufficient..." -- The actual question on the survey is "How much training did you receive for your current mission" The responses were: more than enough (13%); enough (34%); some (20%); very little (12%); and "learning as I go" (20%). The most curious one is the "learning as I go." If you're an infantryman in the Army and your mission is to help build a school for Iraqi children is the response "learning as I go" considered "insufficient" by the Post?

"...and said that they do not plan to reenlist." -- Nearly every branch has a retention goal of 50% for first-term re-enlistments. On the survey 49% of the respondents said that they are unlikely to reenlist. This looks good for the retention goals doesn't it? Half those surveyed do plan to reenlist. Yet the Post doesn’t seem to spin it that way.

"The survey, conducted by the Stars and Stripes newspaper, also recorded about a third of the respondents complaining that their mission lacks clear definition and characterizing the war in Iraq as of little or no value."

Here is the actual question that was asked: "How worthwhile do you think fighting this was for America?" [emphasis added] Note that the question did not ask how worthwhile the war was for Iraq. Since no WMDs have yet been found it could be argued that the threat to America was overestimated. But is toppling a brutal dictator and freeing an entire country really of "no value"?

Even the Post quotes (though buried in the 9th graf) a military historian who says that the numbers are "amazingly high."

"Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with their training." -- On a day to day basis, about 40 percent of the military is doing some form of job that is not directly related to their occupational specialty (working in the messhall, cleaning the latrines, etc.) yet that is essential to the mission. Besides, since much military training consists in learning how to kill the enemy wouldn’t not using their training be a good thing?

"The findings' conflict with statements by military commanders and Bush administration officials that portray the deployed troops as high-spirited and generally well-prepared."

Is that true? Let's look at the actual percentages:

34% (658 troops) rated their morale as low or very low.
27% (522 troops) rated their morale as high or very high
39% (755 troops) rated their morale as average

So it would be more accurate to say that 66% of the respondents rated their morale between "average" and "very high." I don't see how that conflicts with statements by either the Pentagon or the Bush administration.

While some claim that blogs blur the line with journalism, the Post is showing how it's journalism blurs the lines with blogs.