Terror Alert Or Bush Political Ploy

The Seattle Times went on the offensive today against the recent threat warnings the Bush administration has issued. Apparently, now that the organization "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" has been properly discredited and forgotten, the Times has gotten back to the usual business of attacking the Bush administration.

On page A8, we find the story "Democrats More Comfortable Challenging Bush on Terror". This story's title is truly misleading as it really only talks about the political ramifications of the recent terror warnings issued for the New York/New Jersey areas. Please note that there SHOULD NOT BE political ramifications when it comes to terror warnings. They're terror warnings, for Pete's sake!

The third paragraph of the story starts, "The timing provided fuel for skeptics who have suggested Bush has purposely used home-land-security announcements to change the nation's conversation during times of unsettling news for his administration". Who are these skeptics? Journalists? Seattle Times Journalists? The rest of the piece explores this "important" question.

The eighth paragraph states, "But it is apparent they [Democrats] must do so carefully, for fear that any challenge of a safety provision could have a disastrous backlash if a terrorist attack occurs". This is patently false! But I suppose points must be given to the Times for at least "trying" to appear objective. The truth is that attacking Bush on his handling of terror has become a win/win for Kerry, Democrats and the liberal media. If there is no attack, well then, Bush must have issued the warnings to simply boost his campaign footing. If there is an attack (God forbid), I predict the presidency will be handed to Kerry on a silver platter as Bush will have failed at his (post 9/11) MOST IMPORTANT duty, that of protecting the American public. If there is an attack, we will NEVER hear the end of it from liberals.

These days, Bush truly can't win when it comes to the handling of terror. This is unrelated to the Times, but I was listening to a Democratic pundit on TV this weekend criticize Bush's handling of the terror alert warnings and this person was asked what Bush should have done differently. Now his answer was so telling, and it really captures the attitude of Democrats (and the Seattle Times) these days. He basically said ANYTHING Bush does will be wrong (I kid you not) because Bush has lost the trust of the American people. You can basically add the words "and I hate his guts" to that response. I told this story because this seems to perfectly fit the perspective the Seattle Times has when covering any Bush news. There seems to be a tendency to dismiss ANYTHING Bush says or does.

Which leads us beautifully to the next story on the next page, "Dangers From Terrorism are Scant Compared to Other Risks, Experts Say". It's unneccesary to review the story, the title says it all.

Now, please notice how really slick this is. In case you're STILL thinking that the terror warnings are real and not a Bush political ploy, wham!, the Times hits you with this on the next page, A9. Even IF they are real, the dangers of terrorism are really not that important. Again, the Seattle Times has given us another reason to ignore Bush!

I have written this many times (it's in my introduction on the top of this blog), the Seattle Times believes that any news regarding the war on terror somehow helps Bush. Therefore, the Times will attempt to downplay and even dismiss any terror related news. Unfortunately, it is a safe gamble for the Times, because as I stated before, if there is an attack, the political heat will be on Bush, not those who dismissed the threat.