In a recent article entitled "In Pennsylvania, a Parallel Campaign, Neither Neutral Nor Partisan" the New York Times once again exposes that a) they are hideously biased in support of Kerry, b) their reporters have the cognitive ability of comatose howler monkeys, or c) all of the above. The very title contradicts itself...if one isn't neutral it means one has taken a stand and doesn't that make them partisan by default? The writers semantic gymnastics to string this all together also fail quite remarkably giving me the impression that the editorial staff needs to lay off the crack pipe as well. Check out these two statements from the article in question...
...and...
So, the Times claims that this group is not allowed to represent itself to voters as being for or against a particular candidate but that the group is openly stating that it is against Bush? In fact, on the home page of the "Americans Coming Together" website the sidebar expresses quite openly the following statement...
One would think the Times would have compiled a better analysis of what a 527 is and the rules under which they operate before they make such idiotic statements as "they cannot specifically urge people to vote for Mr. Kerry or against Mr. Bush". The very definition of a 527 is that it is organized with the specific intent of "influencing the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to Federal, State, or local public office or office in a political organization, or the election of Presidential electors." One would think it obvious to the wonks at the NYT that the individuals interviewed stating that they openly opposed Bush's re-election would violate the very rules they claimed are in place...but, then again, editorial integrity and critical analysis have been in short supply at the Grey Lady for some time.
So, what are our good friends and allies that John Kerry feels we have disenfranchised been up to in the Middle East? Well, in one part of Afghanistan just outside of Kabul, a few recently gave a dressing down to a group of Canadian soldiers who were in an area which was supposedly under the auspices of Belgian UN troops.
And what did the Canadians discover? Well, inside of 82 unlocked ammunition bunkers which the Belgians had known were there for two years they found piles of ordnance including thousands of old Soviet "Frog" missile, rockets, and mortar shells - many of which had been torn open to recover the explosives contained within. The explosives are sometimes used to blast rock in nearby quarries but it is likely that some had also been used to create improvised explosive devices used in terrorist attacks in Kabul. Great job "allies", way to watch our backs. It seems that the Belgians and the rest of the UN troops who "secured" the area had recorded the presence of the 82 bunkers but never bothered to look inside.
Yup. Should have given those weapons inspectors "more time".