Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Contradictions....

Apr 14, 2004 2:33AM PDT

'In an editorial this week that embodies the Left's unmitigated gall, the New York Times castigated President Bush for not doing enough after receiving an Aug. 6, 2001, briefing memo warning vaguely of bin Laden-planned domestic terrorism. According to the Times, Bush should have "rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes."

That's right. The same editorial board that has barbecued the Bush Justice Department after the Sept. 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations (editorial, June 6, 2002); temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening (editorial, Dec. 28, 2002); and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism (editorial, May 31, 2002) now expects us to believe it would have applauded Bush for his vigilance if he had swiftly ordered airport security officials to stop thousands of young Middle Eastern men at airports during the summer of 2001 on the basis of an ill-defined threat.'

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20040414.shtml

And this is just one of them, there are many more where the press and the Liberals are on both sides of an issue so they can catch the administration in a crossfire.

Bo

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Contradictions....
Apr 14, 2004 5:59AM PDT

Hi Bo,
I wouldn't blame any political party for an editorial's actions.
I would say that this contradition fell solely on the NYT's editors. It's easy to blame someone once all the facts are there to view, but the information was inadequate for Bush to carry out any real action in any definite direction. This type of terrorism was completely new. I suggest that anybody who knew exactly what was planned should point us to their documented, and date stamped views. Otherwise, everyone should put it down as a complete surprise, and a very nasty one at that.

- Collapse -
Wasn't there something about consistency and the liberal mind?
Apr 14, 2004 11:30AM PDT

The hobglobblin? Devil