Yesterday it was AP, today it's Reuters showing their pro-Bush

[sinkingfeeling]

side. Yesterday an AP writer, Angela K. Brown, proclaimed that 'Ft. Qualls' in Crawford was a 'Patriotic Camp'. Today, Reuters' story about *'s 'speech' yesterday contains this:

" Critics say Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington and that the administration has tried to tie Iraq to terrorism since the war to justify its actions."

So I guess the 9/11 Commission and the CIA are just 'critics'!

Here's the link to the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9020634/

[Dora]

1. But we are critics.

We are critical of * and his administration. In addition to being critics, we are dissenters, protestors, citizens, patriots...

Sorry, I just don't see how this is a slur.

[kittenpants]

2. I don't think it's quite as obvious as the AP bias

but by saying it is only the 'critics' who claim Iraq isn't tied to 9/11 it implies that there is bias in that statement. A more professional way of phrasing it, IMO, would be to show the 9/11 panel found no ties between the two or that this claim has since been proven false, etc.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. It's not just 'us' who have said there was no connection. Every panel

and intelligence organization who looked into it has said it. I would say it is a FACT.

Edit: correcting spelling

[Dawgs]

3. Using 'critics' to make a point is a cop out...

and they know it. It let's them make a point without making it look like opinion.