On Monday1, Bill "Falafel" O'Reilly claimed that the NY Times didn't put the JFK Muslim terrorist story on page one because the Times is hell-bent on getting a Democrat elected President in 2008:
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don't be alarmed. According to John Edwards and "The New York Times," this is no big deal. In Sunday's "Times", editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker's restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
[SNIP]
Now why did "The New York Times" do that? It's not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts. Since "The New York Times" desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, "The Times" is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then "The Times" will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us. So "The Times" wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush. Now this is the hallmark of the far left.
BOR is wrong yet again! ThinkProgress has the pic of the front page:
Over the weekend, four Muslims were accused of planning to blowup JFK Airport here in New York City. That comes on the heels of six Muslims arrested for planning to kill U.S. soldiers in New Jersey. But hey, don't be alarmed. According to John Edwards and "The New York Times," this is no big deal. In Sunday's "Times", editor Bill Keller put the JFK story on, ready, page 37 right above a story about kids playing at Fuddrucker's restaurant. Every other New York City paper had the Muslim suspects on page one, where they should have been.
[SNIP]
Now why did "The New York Times" do that? It's not hard to figure it out. The war on terror is perceived to be a Republican strong point. GOP candidates come off tougher in this area than their Democratic counter parts. Since "The New York Times" desperately wants a Democrat to be elected president in 2008, "The Times" is going to play down every terror story unless we get attacked again. Then "The Times" will say despite the fascism of the Bush administration, it could not protect us. So "The Times" wins both ways. The paper diminishes the war on terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush. Now this is the hallmark of the far left.
BOR is wrong yet again! ThinkProgress has the pic of the front page:
1SHOW: THE O'REILLY FACTOR 8:00 PM EST
June 4, 2007 Monday
TRANSCRIPT: 060401cb.256
SECTION: NEWS; Domestic
LENGTH: 1106 words
HEADLINE: Talking Points Memo and Top Story
BYLINE: Bill O'Reilly
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment