It actually writes editorials that say things like this:
Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism. -- At War in Libya - NYTimes.com
Really? Qaddafi's just a one-off? A special case? There haven't been, of late, any other dictators in the region that anybody at the Times can think of that are, or rather were, "erratic, widely reviled," armed with chemical weapons (plus a history of employing them), and fond of terrorism? None? Not even one? Not even a dead one?
Take a moment, Times ed board. Think hard. Ask some of your own reporters. Pass the statement before the few "fact-checkers" that still survive there. Feel free to use the archives of the Times or even, if you wish, Google about the net, and drop by Wikipedia.
Still no idea? Still no concept? Still insist of emitting this flatulence into your remaining readers' faces?
Okay by me. Carry on.
It's not that these piles of dry rabbit pellets emitted by the Times group are so wrong that is amazing. What's amazing is that, with the seldom turgid member of the president shoved so far down their collective throat, they can write these things at all. Maybe it's done with garbled dictation from this daisy chain. Followed by collective gargling.
One always expects a moment of secret shame follows these emissions into the void, but where can shame be found amongst ideological perverts? Caligula would have known how to cancel a subscription to them.
I wonder how many people -- besides Malcolm McDowell, and of course you and me -- remember that movie?
Posted by: Charlie Martin at March 22, 2011 6:01 PMAside from Drudge (and a brief visit to Iconic Photos via your above post) I haven't seen any of the Afghan murder photos.
I know, I know. They are out there, and have been for weeks. Drudge even posted a "worse than abu Ghraib???" teaser.
Nope. I saw that Army chick standing over bagged Iraqis EVERY GODDAMN TIME I TURNED ON MY COMPUTER OR TV OR RADIO... for about two years.
Not even an abu Ghraib. We've got The Won, and he gets The Pass.
For a bit longer, at least. A bit.
Posted by: TmjUtah at March 22, 2011 7:18 PMCharlie, I remember it. I was hooked on Malcolm McDowell movies from the first time I saw A Clockwork Orange in the early 1970s (which also hooked me on classical music, btw). His movies always had a cult-like feel to them, and for some reason, I liked that.
No, the NYT editorial board has no shame. No common sense or good taste, either.
Posted by: waltj at March 24, 2011 7:24 AMOr failing that: "If only Rome had enough lard for me to...wait a minute, this lot might enjoy that."
Posted by: Rich Fader at March 24, 2011 2:35 PMMmm, think it was Nero, not Caligula, wot said that about Rome's one neck. Cut McDowell, cue (Sir) Peter Ustinov.
Posted by: Joe Hooker at March 26, 2011 7:55 PM"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated to combat spam and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.
HOME