When is a lie "inartfully worded?"

Howard Kurtz:

"Howell's column Sunday said that a number of Democrats "have gotten Abramoff campaign money." That was inartfully worded. I believe what she was trying to say, and I have not discussed this with her, is that some Democrats have received campaign cash from Abramoff clients, and that this may have been orchestrated by the convicted lobbyist. That's why you have a number of Democrats (as well as many Republicans, now including Denny Hastert) giving back the tainted dough or donating it to charity. Even National Review Editor Rich Lowry says this is basically a Republican scandal -- we are talking about a Bush fundraiser and Tom DeLay pal -- but where the tangled web has extended to Democrats, we need to mention that too."

Howard, how can you speak about her motives without actually talking to her? This was a major column for the Washington Post covering a crime that is rocking the Hill and is indeed a Republican scandal. Howell needs to mention Democrats as long as they are part of the illegal activities involved (taking legal contributions is not part of the story)- not because she is being pressured by Republicans to do so. That is ethically challenged reporting.