The Washington Post's op-ed page: the good, the bad and the really boring

■"'We Need to Accelerate,'" column by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.

■"Amnesty's Amnesia," op-ed by Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.

■"The Right Path to Arab Democracy" op-ed by Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.

■"Judging This Court" column by George F. Will, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.

■"Candor on Immigration" column by Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.

Thinking back to my judging of the various levels of quality of op-ed pages in general (WSJ strong, Post pretty strong, Times getting weaker), the 8 June edition of the Post reminds me of that paper's continuing strengths relative to the Times, whichóquite franklyóI was surprised to rank 3rd of the 3.

For your political/legal you've got George Will here, instead of the insufferably smug Maureen Dowd, whose unfunny humor (sophomoric is the word) makes it impossible for me to actually wade through one of her silly pieces.

For economics, you have Bob Samuelson, who actually informs, instead of Paul Krugman, who mostly just rants on Bush nowadays, to sad effect (for his reputation, that is).

For national security, there's David Ignatius versus . . . I guess Friedman, who's tourist stint there seems ended. Kristof's really the guy now on security.

For general self-righteousness, you've got Anne Applebaum, who's top flight, compared to Bob Herbert, who's bottom drawer in his sputtering rage.

[Applebaum's is especially good on Amnesty International's stunning tendency to compare Guatanamo to the Soviet gulag systemóa comparison so amazingly dumb in its skewing of historical weight as to defy reason).]

Where the Post tends to lose is in the quality of the guest columnist (where WSJ rules). Here we have Madeleine Albright (who somehow manages to write just as boringly as she speaks) and Vin Weber (not exactly your towering intellect). In their supremely dull piece, they tout their Council on Foreign Relations study, highlighting its main findings (wonderfully obvious, they manage to say almost nothing new, which seems to be a prerequisite for CFR writing, which is so careful never to offend, you basically have only Sam Huntington's "clash" article as a seemingly controversial piece during Foreign Affairs entire post-Cold War run). The Times, in contrast, seems to have as many or more Foreign Policy writers than Foreign Affairs types, and on that basis it clearly outperforms the Post.