Friday, June 18, 2004

Shameless partisanship 

The New York Times just keeps piling on the bullshit. This time it's not even on the opinion pages... it's presented as straight up news. Absolutely disgusting.

Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House.

In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
That quote from Bush, by the way, is an unblemished fact. Representatives of the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda met with some regularity over a period of years. It might not have resulted in a strong relationship or much in the way of cooperation, but surely regular contact constitues a relationship of some kind. The media's insistence that there was no relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is about as serious as Bill Clinton's finger-waving assertion that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Tell me, how many meetings, over the course of a decade, does it take to constitute a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

I guess that, just like Clinton, the NYT and others believe that something never happened unless it met certain requirements of degree or frequency.

Using the NYT's logic, I have to conclude that I don't have any "relationship" with my college buddies because I only keep in touch with them with the occasional email or phone call. Even visiting once in a while wouldn't count.

I wonder what does count?
| |

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

Search Popdex: