Ok, I had to share this because I almost spit my soda all over my computer monitor when I saw it.
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
The funny thing about
the article is that it does not cast Mr. Reynolds in a negative light by labeling him as moonbat conspiracy theorist. Instead, the article casts him as person with a criminal justice background who is not satisifed with the official explanation and who wants a better inquiry into the WTC collapse.
The Times doesn't stop there though and shift its focus to Iraq.
some thoughtful officers are beginning to question who the insurgents actually are. In a recent interview the head of the US 42nd Infantry Division which covers key trouble spots, including Baquba and Samarra Major General Joseph Taluto said he could understand why some ordinary Iraqis would take up arms against U.S. forces because "they're offended by our presence." Taluto added, "If a good, honest person feels having all these Humvees driving on the road, having us moving people out of the way, having us patrol the streets, having car bombs going off, you can understand how they could (want to fight us). There is a sense of a good resistance, or an accepted resistance. They say 'okay, if you shoot a coalition soldier, that's okay, it's not a bad thing but you shouldn't kill other Iraqis.'"
Huh? Is the normal editor on vacation? The solders questioning the administration's characterization of the insurgency are not only named, but they are called "thoughtful".
I'm wondering if the Washington Times' kool-aid delivery for this week hasn't arrived yet.