Bush times Hurricane Emily's landfall to deflect media attention from Karl Rove
Just today I've seen two of the more ridiculous moonbat conspiracy theories out there.
First, Reuters (who else?) opines in what masquerades as a news article:
"Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove."
Oh, "sources" say. That must mean it's true. After all, an anonymous source has never been full of BS. Plus, what kind of "scoop" is this? Do these "sources" have any actual factual information upon which to base this assessment? This is just pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory mongering that the reporter put in a purported news article because of the reporter's own political leanings. This is even more blatantly obvious given the fact that there there is no Karl Rove story.
Is the "source" the same one who said the following in the article's next paragraph:
"'It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,' one Republican strategist said."
Oooo, one Republican staffer who is apparently so dense that he/she thinks that the Supreme Court nominee story will last a mere one week.
Next, we get the moonbats over at TalkLeft.com who have this to say about the Iraqi Special Tribunal's announcement of its prosecution of Saddam Hussein:
"Providing a happy distraction for the Bush administration (which always needs one, this time because of Karl Rove) . . ."
Yea, Bush timed the announcement of Saddam's prosecution (like no one knew it was coming) to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Of course, TalkLeft could mean that it is a mere happy coincidence, but I doubt it.
So, in the grand tradition of mainstream Democratic thought, I proudly announce my first scoop as a blogger - Bush timed Hurricane Emily to deflect media attention from the Karl Rove "scandal." How did I get this scoop of scoops? Like all moonbat conspiracy theorists, I heard it from "sources."
Scrappleface, feel free to run with this one.
First, Reuters (who else?) opines in what masquerades as a news article:
"Sources said the timing of an announcement had been moved up in part to deflect attention away from a CIA leak controversy that has engulfed Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove."
Oh, "sources" say. That must mean it's true. After all, an anonymous source has never been full of BS. Plus, what kind of "scoop" is this? Do these "sources" have any actual factual information upon which to base this assessment? This is just pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory mongering that the reporter put in a purported news article because of the reporter's own political leanings. This is even more blatantly obvious given the fact that there there is no Karl Rove story.
Is the "source" the same one who said the following in the article's next paragraph:
"'It helps take Rove off the front pages for a week,' one Republican strategist said."
Oooo, one Republican staffer who is apparently so dense that he/she thinks that the Supreme Court nominee story will last a mere one week.
Next, we get the moonbats over at TalkLeft.com who have this to say about the Iraqi Special Tribunal's announcement of its prosecution of Saddam Hussein:
"Providing a happy distraction for the Bush administration (which always needs one, this time because of Karl Rove) . . ."
Yea, Bush timed the announcement of Saddam's prosecution (like no one knew it was coming) to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Of course, TalkLeft could mean that it is a mere happy coincidence, but I doubt it.
So, in the grand tradition of mainstream Democratic thought, I proudly announce my first scoop as a blogger - Bush timed Hurricane Emily to deflect media attention from the Karl Rove "scandal." How did I get this scoop of scoops? Like all moonbat conspiracy theorists, I heard it from "sources."
Scrappleface, feel free to run with this one.
posted by Ben at 12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home