Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
If I couple this with some appropriate genuflections, perhaps you won't reach the immediate conclusion that I'm that street protester last week who was screaming at you when you exited the Starbucks.
|
A. I don't go to Starbucks. I buy my coffee direct from poor Columbian farmers. "Fair trade", and all that, you know.
B. Let me sum up, for context. (Maybe this all just makes me too mad. Well, okay, not "maybe".)
Old story about missing material. NYT, one of many "news" outlets which have expended way too much of their credibility capital actively pushing the Democrat viewpoint to risk a Bush win, trumpets this "Bush failed!" story six days pre-election, knowing that the critical "undecided" voter is, basically, a moron who will vote based on the last bad thing heard about a candidate. They do it without research. CBS is trying to do the same thing, but wants it done on election eve. They're not even bothering to try and hide their whoredom at this point - polls aren't looking good for Kerry, and they'll do anything.
But, wait, says NBC, we were there, and the stuff was gone. Then, The Corner posts an e-mail they say is from a government employee (unsourced, I know, but they've been fairly good in the past about integrity of sources) giving the IAEA explanation.
Now, all of the lefty blogdom is saying, we need to wait until this new allegation is proved. Integrity and all that.
Gee, why would they say that? Maybe they would like to see it remain "unproven" until next Wednesday? Ya think?
So, cites on the IAEA explanation? None yet. But that didn't seem to inhibit the NYT, or CBS, right? They felt just fine running the "Bush fucked up!" story right away.
Rather wasn't the exception.
