[Zeppo]

Don't you just love the way that the author of the article, Mr. Johnston, alternates between delivering a narrative of factual information that clearly appears to exonerate Rove of any wrongdoing, and then delivering Democrat-inspired commentary that appears to deliberately ignore the facts that were just placed on the table and instead states that the revelations portend a rough road ahead for Karl Rove and President Bush?

It is almost as if two different hands were typing the article (for argument's sake, let's call them "the good hand" and "the bad hand") - the good hand is sticking to assertions of fact that can be proven or disproven, but the facts on the table seem to be in agreement with the essence of Mr. Rove's known explanation as well as with Mr. Novak's explanation. Yet, right out of a Jekyll/Hyde tale, the bad hand intrudes with its non-sequitur anti-Rove, anti-Bush commentary. So, is Mr. Johnston a schizo, or was he compelled by evil editor-drones to adhere to the Times' anti-Bush political bias litmus test despite the pesky facts getting in the way of the desired rhetorical direction?

[conservativepoet]

Just think, these people (NYT) get paid for this kind of writing.

[WKL815]

great minds =)