I, unluckily, watched the Peter Jennings news last night. Like other leftist media, ABC is working off "talking points" that suggest that all stories be framed with a conclusion that America and Israel are opposed ("Bush says yes, Sharon says no"). I saw this with the story with a triumphalist tone "Israeli intel says terr, but the FBI, etc. etc. who have investigated this say it's an isolated incident." Jennings was actually gleeful to make sure this can't be construed as a "bad for Arabs" story. A quite liberal friend of mine, who I have been bugging about Jennings and others turned to me and said "wow, he is biased, you're right." Frankly, how could any media make any conclusion? How about an "isolated incident of terrorism" - is that a good compromise?
However, this is a great statement by you, so I will hold off on your quiet time:
Your statement: How about an "isolated incident of terrorism" -:)
It will be interesting to hear how Jennings and the other Arab lickers on tv try to spin and handle this news as it comes out. Of course, they will probably just spike it or fast read it right before a 3 minute commercial.
You poor thing, Shermy! I know how that is ... extremely taxing on the ol' patience sometimes, eh?
But given the fact that the entire planet views America and Israel as joined at the hip, it seems like all this dissembling is only for the benefit of the U.S. audience.
Another reason for the "hard cop/soft cop shadow play may be that intell flows more freely when nobody's pointing fingers.
Otherwise, I don't get it. Anyone who thinks these "isolated incidents" are either isolated or incidental is not paying attention.