24 June 2006

What do we have instead?


I love this shit. The New York Times, instead of reporting that they have been in error for 3 years, instead breaks a story and spins it like there's something nefarious going on.

No, there are records of international wire transfers (primary method of financing terrorism) that have led directly to the capture of Al-Qaeda terrorist with blood on their hands.

What the FUCK laws were broken? Other than espionage laws broken by the reporters and editors of the New York Times, laws that if enforced would have them locked away for a very long time.

But that would be "censorship". That would be "bad".

I hope that the editor who blessed off on that story has a family member blown up the next time terrorists strike the United States.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home