Replies

The editor responsible for letting this garbled article ever get published needs to return to school:

The Washington Post reports that a 1998 memo to the president was entitled, “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S” and focused mainly on past efforts by the alleged terrorist mastermind to infiltrate the U.S. and hit targets here.

The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, the Post quotes knowledgeable sources as saying.

Mr. Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the U.S., because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources told the Post.

The writer appears to be mixing dates relevant to the previous administration in with references to the current administration. Is this to confuse or imply?

Is this to confuse or imply?

While I would like to believe this is proof of bias, I'm not sure. Whoever wrote this appears incapable of independent thought. I've cruised through CBSNEWS, WP and the LA Times and I've noticed that almost every single paragraph is ripped off, verbatim, from one of the other websites.

Last evening I was channel surfing and happened to come across MSNBC and the Brian Williams' newscast. He had a republican and a democrat "debating" pre-Sept 11. I just happened to hit the issue of the First Lady's remarks re the alleged "warnings." No name was attached to the First Lady. As the no-name First Lady was mentioned, a picture of -- guess who -- was flashed on the screen. Yep, hitlary. Deliberate? Or not deliberate? You be the judge...