Not everything in this New York Times editorial is made up of cheap shots and innuendo (for instance, the criticism of the amount of resources dedicated to anti-terror activities in New York is entirely fair – and I’m not saying so just because I live here), but this passage takes some beating:
“Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. “
Oh really?
With the President then (supposedly) pushed onto the defensive, the editorial writer has this to say:
“There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances.”
Nothing?
Of course, if there is a list of people to blame for Americans not taking future warnings as seriously as they should, writers at the New York Times will be right near the top (along with crazy Dr. Dean, but he, poor man is, quite clearly, no longer responsible for his actions). For example, let’s take a look at this comment from an editorial in the Times on Tuesday, August 3rd:
“The Times reports today that much of the information that led to the heightened alert is actually three or four years old and that authorities had found no concrete evidence that a terror plot was actually under way. This news does nothing to bolster the confidence Americans need that the administration is not using intelligence for political gain.”
Here is what the same paper (admittedly within the context of continuing criticism of the White House’s handling of this matter) has to say today, two days later, about that same information:
“The administration was obviously right to warn the country that Al Qaeda had apparently studied financial institutions in three cities with the idea of a possible attack.”