The Straw That Broke The Elder's Back?
Over the years that I've subscribed to the Minneapolis Star Tribune I've put with a lot. Lazy reporting, sloppy writing, a liberal bias that has seeped into every section of the paper, and an editorial page that makes Ted Kennedy look fair and balanced. But I've always hung in there. Call me old fashioned, but I still enjoy spreading my morning paper out on the breakfast table, knocking back a couple of cups of java and reading about local news, business, entertainment, and sports. And of course the Backfence. Frankly the St. Paul Pioneer Press is not on the same playing field (as rocky and poorly kept as it might be) as the Star Tribune in these areas. And so, despite many misgivings and moments of utter disbelief, I have soldiered on and continued to subscribe to the paper.
But an editorial in today's Strib has pushed me to the brink. Titled Connecting dots/Bush's culpability for 9/11, it is without a doubt the most outrageous, arrogant, misleading, truth challenged, distorted, piece of shi...
Sorry. Couldn't help myself. Just thinking about it gets me worked up into a chair smashing rage. The opening line left me shocked, chagrined, mortified and stupefied.
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission Thursday allows for only one conclusion: The Bush administration was outrageously derelict in its duty to protect the American people as the Al-Qaida threat developed.
Got that? Only one conclusion is allowed. That's it. Just one. The other conclusions drawn by the 80% of Americans not on the Left's fantasy world fringe are wrong. Plain and simple.
What is it with the this childish absolutism that infects these people? It reminds me of Janeane Garofalo's claim that:
There is no way any rational, reasonable person can say that the Bush Administration has been good for America.
Do they think that merely using such language invariably makes what they say so? If I said, "Today's editorial in the Star Tribune allows for only one conclusion: The editorial writers are outrageously cracked", does that invalidate all other viewpoints? Is it then a matter a who says it first? Like when we were kids and we "called" things?
"I call that I'm quarterback. Period. Period. Period. Infinity. Infinity. Infinity."
"I call that only one conclusion is allowed. Period. Period. Period."
If you must, read the whole editorial. I can't even bring myself to rehash any more of its vile, putrid, prevarications.
The Strib has wallowed in the mire on many occasions in the past, but this sinks to a whole new depth of muck. I don't know how much longer I can allow such insipid filth to cross my threshold on a daily basis. This might just be the last straw.