What's a Washington Post reader to believe?

According to the Post's editorial board, passage of the new nuclear arms treaty with Russia is no big deal:

• “PRESIDENT OBAMA'S claim that it is 'a national security imperative' that the U.S. Senate ratify a nuclear arms treaty with Russia before the end of the year seems more than a little overstated.”

• "[N]o calamity will befall the United States if the Senate does not act this year. The Cold War threat of a nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is, for now, almost nonexistent."

• “Vice President Biden's riposte that 'failure to pass the New START treaty this year would endanger our national security' is hyperbole.”

But, on the other hand, according to the Post's editorial board, the treaty should be approved -- and delay would have serious consequences:

• "[T]he treaty ought to be approved."

• "[A] delay would put the administration's 'reset' of relations with Russia at risk - along with Moscow's cooperation on vital matters like Iran's nuclear program and maintaining secure military supply routes to Afghanistan. It might lessen the willingness of nonaligned nations to cooperate with sanctions against Iran and other would-be proliferators."

And all of that is from a single Washington Post editorial. So, uh … what gives?

Well, the Post editorial scolds Senate Republicans for delaying ratification of the treaty, noting that they are doing so despite the fact that the lead GOP negotiator, Sen. Jon Kyl, has acknowledged that the treaty is “relatively benign,” and despite the fact that “The White House has gone a long way to meet his concerns.” As the Post notes: “Rather than take yes for an answer, Mr. Kyl blindsided the administration this week with a statement claiming that not enough time remained this year to ratify the treaty given 'the complex and unresolved issues related to START and modernization.' That was hard to credit.”

In light of that criticism, it seems clear that the Post's nit-picking complaints that Obama and Biden have engaged in hyperbole are an attempt to portray both sides as equally guilty of “maneuvering for political advantage.” If so, it's a ludicrous example of false equivalence: The Post agrees with the administration that the treaty should be ratified, it knows the White House has addressed the GOP's concerns, it knows the Republicans consider the treaty “benign,” and it knows the Republicans are refusing to “take yes for an answer.” And yet the Post pretends that Obama's use of garden-variety hyperbole (“national security imperative”) is as egregious an act of partisanship as Kyl's attempts to delay ratification of the treaty even after his concerns have been met.