Amazingly, both Kerry and the NYTimes are sticking to their "Bush let weapons/explosives -- but not weapons/explosives that could be defined as WMDs, but that are nonetheless very dangerous in the hands of terrorists, but would not have been dangerous in the hands of Saddam -- get stolen" guns. Just go here and read this. Honestly, it makes me a little nauseous. It makes other people sick, too. Honestly, if it doesn't bother you, there's something wrong.
The Times and CBS are taking partisan hackery to a new level. As someone to whom such a monicker has been attached--ahem--they put me to shame. I guess I'm called such because I'm perceived to tow the "party line" on issues, even though there are several areas of disagreement with myself and the Republican party. On this little site I do not play it down the middle, I claim to support a side and let my opinions be known. I make claims, but I also attempt to always provide links to corresponding data or news articles. I hope any time I am factually in error, that someone would point it out.
On the other hand, you have the New York Times and CBS. Two "reputable" and award winning news organizations. They're so steeped in news lore that they have nicknames. So presented with a story the week before the election that could (even though weakly) hurt the President, they run with it. Do they fact check what the source is telling them? Do the do a Lexis/Nexis search? Do they even do a Google search? Did anyone think to just ask others in the news organization if they've ever done a story on this topic...at this location? Do they have editors? After realizing that there were some large inconsistencies in the story, do they begin to soften their stance? Do they try to balance the story with the contradictory information? Do they note that the main source for the story has a motive to politically harm the President? Do they issue a retraction? Or do they report the day after "breaking" the months old story, that it's now a election issue on the front page? (*Answers provided below.)
Yes, and I'm the partisan hack.
(* No,No,No,No,Apparently Not,No,No,No,No,Yes.)