According to Mr Bush's officials, the period of increased threat will continue at least until the American presidential elections in November, whose outcome al-Qaeda is believed to be seeking to influence...
I am more than fed up with the pusillanimous pomposity of the Economist's reporting on GWB. The above sentence, taken from 'Still plotting, still recruiting', is typical. Let's deconstruct it at a Journalism 101 level. Who believes al-Qaeda is seeking to influence the election? Based on what? What outcome would al-Qaeda favor? Would they support a familiar facilitator like GWB, or risk a more effective opponent? Assuming they prefer to reelect Bush, would al-Qaeda favor a cruel attack to strengthen Bush's base -- or feign weakness so that Bush could claim to protected America?
Intellectual laziness meets a craven lust for access to Bush insiders -- and delivers vapid stupidity. The Economist needs a serious kick in the proverbial pants.
Post a Comment