littleboxes
Wrong Headline or Prince Loves Freedom
The headline for this story is:
"Edwards: Bush Implied Saddam-9/11 Link"
it should read
"Bush Incorrectly Implied Saddam-9/11 Link"
or
"Bush Implied Saddam-9/11 Link, Edwards Criticizes"
The actual headline implies that this is only John Edwards's opinion, not an actual fact. It is a fact!
from the article:
Bush said last Sept. 17 that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." But at the same time the president said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Some of our staff suggest that Bush has not explicitly stated that Saddam helped perpetrate the events of 9/11. Although this is probably true, it strikes most of us as, well, a really stupid point to make. It is like saying Clinton didn't really lie about the Monica thing because in his mind "sexual relations" didn't include oral sex. Apparently, in Bush's mind "al-Qaida ties" implies Saddam and al-Qaida did not like each other but they had spoken before and decided that yes, they did hate each other. Or maybe he means that Saddam actually had a few neck ties that were emblazened with the al-Qaida logo. Which if you haven't seen it, is very similar to the symbol once employed by Prince when he was no longer Prince. But now Prince is Prince again. Maybe he changed his name back to Prince because al-Qaida started using his symbol and it was on all these neck ties and well, Prince just didn't want any confusion. Why didn't Prince want any confusion? Because Prince loves freedom.
What do the republicans say of Edwards's criticism?
"This attack by John Edwards is typically baseless and flailing and there is no contradiction," Schmidt said. "The reason for the attack is that John Kerry took his eighth distinct position on the war in Iraq this week and their position has receded into complete incoherence."
What is so god damn difficult to understand about the president falsely implying a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.
p.s. Can we please agree on the spelling of al-Qaida!!
"Edwards: Bush Implied Saddam-9/11 Link"
it should read
"Bush Incorrectly Implied Saddam-9/11 Link"
or
"Bush Implied Saddam-9/11 Link, Edwards Criticizes"
The actual headline implies that this is only John Edwards's opinion, not an actual fact. It is a fact!
from the article:
Bush said last Sept. 17 that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties." But at the same time the president said, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Some of our staff suggest that Bush has not explicitly stated that Saddam helped perpetrate the events of 9/11. Although this is probably true, it strikes most of us as, well, a really stupid point to make. It is like saying Clinton didn't really lie about the Monica thing because in his mind "sexual relations" didn't include oral sex. Apparently, in Bush's mind "al-Qaida ties" implies Saddam and al-Qaida did not like each other but they had spoken before and decided that yes, they did hate each other. Or maybe he means that Saddam actually had a few neck ties that were emblazened with the al-Qaida logo. Which if you haven't seen it, is very similar to the symbol once employed by Prince when he was no longer Prince. But now Prince is Prince again. Maybe he changed his name back to Prince because al-Qaida started using his symbol and it was on all these neck ties and well, Prince just didn't want any confusion. Why didn't Prince want any confusion? Because Prince loves freedom.
What do the republicans say of Edwards's criticism?
"This attack by John Edwards is typically baseless and flailing and there is no contradiction," Schmidt said. "The reason for the attack is that John Kerry took his eighth distinct position on the war in Iraq this week and their position has receded into complete incoherence."
What is so god damn difficult to understand about the president falsely implying a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida.
p.s. Can we please agree on the spelling of al-Qaida!!
posted by littleboxes at 1:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home