AlexC at pstupidonymous wonders "if anyone is going to call [Paul Johnson's murders] terrorists." And says that "CNN can now get back to 24/7 Abu Ghraib coverage."
Alex is direct, Lileks is flowery:
The clock has reset to 9:10Next story: Rumsfeld comments about the Secret Prisoner who was moved without notifying the International Red Cross, the Hague, the EU Cheese-Accrediting Bureau, and the Columbia Record House. The anchorperson helpfully informs us that this violates the Geneva Accords. Next story: an American shown blindfolded, held hostage; photos from the internet with his captors in hoods holding guns.
The anchorperson neglects to opine on whether this violates international law.
And why should she?
That's relevant, how?
At some level kids, this is pretty close to treason. Harsh words for some very harsh deeds.
Posted by jk at June 18, 2004 07:40 PMAs I explained in "'Bush Lied' and the Lying Liars..." below, these people (media liberals and Dem partisans) don't pass judgment on the act, but on the actor instead. And as far as they are concerned, the "war" is over. Their main concern now is patching the holes that GWB and the conservative congress are blowing through the hull of the entitlement machine created by 40 years of Democrat congresses. That ship is taking on water and they know it.
Were the left-leaning media to report the war without bias, Democrat pollsters, advisors and partisans at all levels would be apoplectic. The liberal media spin is therefore designed not only to prevent contributing to the re-election of GWB, but to ward off howls of "What the h___ are you doing?!" from their fellow travelers.
Posted by: johngalt at June 19, 2004 11:23 AMNow, we have the increasingly selective "reporting" from the 9/11 commisiion. It is stunning how biased and lazy these people can be and still be taken seriously by so many.
Posted by: jk at June 21, 2004 08:30 AM