No, Bush used the word "decimated" correctly. Dowd did NOT, on the other hand, use it correctly.President Bush said that Al Qaeda is being decimated. That's correct. Everytime that you kill 1 out of every 10 of a group of people, they are being decimated.
In contrast, Dowd said that because Al Qaeda still had members alive who were capable of hitting us in Saudi Arabia, for example, that they were not decimated.
But that's incorrect. We have decimated them time and time again, so much so that half of their leaders are dead or imprisoned. We will continue to decimate them, but unlike poor Ms. Dowd, I am actually intelligent-enough to know that a decimated group can still hit back.
Had the poor tramp used the word "incapacitated", then she potentially could have made the correct assertation that Al Qaeda is not yet incapacitated. Of course, making such a statement would have been meaningless to her, as it wouldn't have furthered her Socialistic agenda nor bashed President Bush (since that's essentially what he said in the first place).
No matter. She didn't even use the word "incapacitated". Instead, she claimed, erroneously, that Al Qaeda clearly hadn't been "decimated".
She's wrong. She didn't use even so much as the correct word, and she also misquoted President Bush in her original version of this now-sanitized article.
She's a hack. She's unqualified to write for any large-circulation publication because she's completely, and I mean it when I say completely, unobjective.
She has a powerful job at a powerful publication only because Leftist radicals have taken control of the NY Times.