So last night we had this rather active thread regarding speculation as to the perpetrators behind the London bombings, and whether or not speculation, based on no evidence, was a valid subject of discussion.
Many seem to share the idea that equates "speculation" with "tinfoil". Many suggested the idea that posters on DailyKos should acknowledge, themselves, when they were speculating, that they might be tinfoil-y.
So today I find it ironic that in the LA Times, there's this lovely article, which is one hundred percent pure speculation, passing itself off as news.
The headline says it all:
After Flagging Support, a Second Wind for Bush
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-assess10jul10,0,6166558,print.story?coll=la-home-headlines
And check out this language in this opening section:
<<A surge in public concern about terrorism means a *probable* boost in support for President Bush and the war in Iraq.
Renewed fear of terrorist sleeper cells will *probably* spur increased support for tough law enforcement measures such as the Patriot Act, which is up for renewal.
And there's new enthusiasm in Congress for increased spending on domestic security, especially mass transit -- an area in which legislators were cutting budgets three weeks ago.>>
Note the use of "probable" and "probably".
Then they dig up a nice quote to support their SPECULATION:
"The bombings will give both Bush and [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair a boost," said Christopher Gelpi, a political scientist at Duke University who studies public opinion in times of war. "I think the attacks may help slow the ebbing of [public] support over Iraq, because the bombings make [Bush's] point about linking Iraq and terrorism."
Another quote that supports this SPECULATION:
"All our data show that Bush's greatest strength is on terrorism, as opposed to other parts of his job," said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll. "These attacks will remind people ... of what Bush's strength is. The most *probable* effect is that support for the president and his policies will go up in the short term."
And more speculation to shove the patriot act down our throats:
"This changes the dynamic on the Patriot Act," said Norman J. Ornstein, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, referring to the post-9/11 law that gave federal agencies new powers to investigate suspected terrorist activities. "It strengthens the argument that diluting the Patriot Act would weaken our ability to infiltrate sleeper cells."
And a little further down, more speculation:
<<The bombings *might* also spur Congress to consider new counter-terrorism measures, including possible limits to the State Department's "visa waiver" program, which allows citizens of 27 countries to enter the United States without visas or interviews, congressional aides said. >>
Don't you just love it? How the mainstream media is telling us what we think, and how we feel, even without any evidence WHATSOEVER to actually support it?
I am disgusted by this. This is exactly like when the Downing Street Memos first came out and newspapers, after NOT reporting on the memos at ALL, then went onto say that public reaction to them was almost nil, that people didn't care.
Who are these idiots who write for, in this case, the LA Times?