had to copy & paste again the tiny pieces. blogger's really sick today. really sick, cuz the CR seems to be disappearing and making the paragraphs run togheter. c'mon guys, you almost got me hooked.

today's TP:

USAT fronts the contention from unnamed "U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials" that Iraqis are somehow learning about UN inspectors' plans. The officials told USAT that they've seen evidence that Iraq is cleaning up sites slated for inspection well before inspectors arrive. The paper quotes a UN official acknowledging the early cleanups but also saying they're not a sign that Saddam has infiltrated the U.N. team. (The paper doesn't unduly exert itself and try to explain the discrepancy.)

what it also fails to explain is why arent the gooks supplying this to the inspectors?

***************

israel fucked up yesterday re-appointing sharon over mitzna. its not surprising however. given that the string pullers won again here.

***************************

heh, and TP gets to the bottom of their column to state the obvious:

In a few places, the president played Pinocchio (or was at least misleading), and the papers mostly give him a pass. The NYT for instance, notes that the president "promised his American audience tax relief for ordinary families and for investors in the stock market." Setting aside the use of the loaded-term "tax relief," the sentence was a concise summary of Bush's assertion that his tax cuts will save 92 million Americans "an average of almost $1,000." Except that that assertion is deceptive, as NYT's Paul Krugman and others have pointed out. (Americans whose income is near the national mean would probably save a few hundred bucks.)

Something more significant that the papers should have flagged: During the speech, Bush contended that Iraq is still trying to develop nukes. He said Saddam has tried to buy uranium from a source in Africa, and also that Iraq has imported specialized aluminum tubes for nuclear development. Chief UN nuke inspector Mohamed El-Baradei has said he hasn't seen any evidence supporting the first allegation and has explained that the second one probably isn't true. (A Post piece not connected to the president's speech reiterates that point.) Idea: Why don't the papers do a regular feature looking at the accuracy of assertions in major speeches--just like some do with campaign ads?

can we say incubator robbers?

but the question of why the papers can't validate their reporting before press, is indicative of the left-wing bias aintit. mwahahaha