Page Thirty (30)

So. The New York Times published an article about the terrorist plot that was avoided.
It was on page thirty (30). As in the back half of the magazine.

So, in case you didn't hear about it because it was buried in an overly liberal exaltation of Paris Hilton's great example of reporting to jail early:

Four (4) men have been confirmed as suspects in a terrorist plot against the JFK airport in New York. They were going to blow up one of the main fuel lines that also supplies other airports...creating a nice little chain reaction, taking lots of lives, and in their own words "killing JFK for the second time."
(What the New York Times didn't tell you: these men were Muslim. Yeah, like the terrorists that blew up the WTC. Long beards, like hiding in caves. You know the type.)

(And. Let me stop right here for a second. WHAT? JFK Airport is in New York? And their own LITTLE magazine can't make this HUGE story front page? They just blow it off as "Oh, yeah right like they could do something like that. It was ill planned! It was infeasible for these men to do that! They weren't secretive enough about it!" Right. That's what the really left wing (insert: idiots) would've said before 9/11 if the terrorists had been caught the day before. Oh. WAIT. 9/11. Wasn't that in New York, too? Am I wrong? Or...if someone tries to hit your city twice (2 xs) with blowing stuff up, and you're in charge of reporting the news...wouldn't you make sure EVERYONE knew? Wouldn't you be the slightest bit PISSED? Would you NOT hide the story on page THIRTY (30) in your reporting-device?! Furthermore, would you not be proud that your city avoided a second (2nd) "9/11"? That our (the United States of America) intelligence has increased that much that we are able to avert these kinds of activities from happening? "No. We're more excited that Paris Hilton's in jail. We don't care that four (4) Islam extremists tried to blow up our city for the second time and kill our already dying air-travel market!" Wasn't JFK a democrat? Is he not their sainted, sanctified hero!? If someone wants to kill your hero a second time, would you not be, again, pissed? What the heck does Uncle *hiccup* Ted have to say about this?!)

Now, that was a really long parenthetical. I bet I gave the averted attack at JFK more attention than the Times, though.

I know, I know: "Whitney, you're ridiculous. There's no way the Times thinks that Paris Hilton going to jail is more important than the JFK almost-bombing!"
No. I know they don't think that. They're scared. They're cowardly. They're BAD journalists.
They're afraid to give Bush ANY credibility. They're scared that he may be somewhat RIGHT about those people (x^z) in the middle east. They're TERRIFIED that Bush may be vindicated about his "horrid wire tapping!".
And they should be.
They should be scared as hell. Because when a democrat gets into office (and I HATE that I said "when," but I've lost faith in the GOP), the Democrat party will realize that you can't just sit down and "negotiate" with these people. They don't want to roast marshmellows and sing "Kumbaya" (to paraphrase the great Sean Hannity's speech I heard live in DC at CPAC). They want to kill us. And if we let the donkies (insert: asses) have their way, they will.
Why these crazy evangelical, closeminded liberals don't want to do anything about it, I don't understand.