February 09, 2006

Poll: Loony? Or Linkable?

The Washington Times. Whaddya say?

Because, you know, if they are linkable, this is very provocative:

1) The article makes clear that Bush is spying on Americans talking to Americans inside the United States, even when neither of the two Americans are members of Al Qaeda or an affiliate.

2) The article makes clear that Bush's domestic spy program is totally ineffective and unnecessary as Al Qaeda stopped using the phones and email a long time ago.

3) The article says that the Bush teams knows of specific Al Qaeda members in the US at the moment, but because of Bush's incompetence he has been unable to find them.

So?

Posted by binky at February 9, 2006 05:30 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Media


Comments

A reasonably intelligent (and somewhat right-of-center, but not painfully) colleague once maintained that anything by Bill Gertz was likely to be well-sourced and reasonably solid, but that the rest of the paper was worthless. I haven't followed Gertz closely enough to offer a firsthand opinion.

Posted by: jacflash at February 9, 2006 06:35 PM | PERMALINK

They've had a respectable and careful writer or two over the years. And right now they are, on occasion, a very good source actually - b/c sometimes they've got better access to this White House than you'd think a loony paper would have (or SHOULD have). So - linkable. I'm sure I've linked to them in the past.

Posted by: Armand at February 9, 2006 08:24 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?