SHOCK: THE NEW YORK TIMES DECIDES NOT TO TELL THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY!!
Via Matt Drudge, the NYT has rejected an editorial by John McCain in response to an editorial Barry Obama wrote about his position on Iraq less than a week ago. I'm personally flabbergasted. I can't believe the Times would risk its reputation of objectivity and even handedness. If they keep this up they might become known as left wing advocates posing as journalists. People might even believe that the last Republican they endorsed for President was Dwight Eisenhower.
On the other hand, I was surprised that the Iraq war was still going on. I never see anything about it in the Times anymore. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it anymore unless they get an editorial by Barry Obama('s staff)? A curious thought to ponder. They couldn't write enough about it in 2005. Are there no more Jack Murtha quotes comparing our soldiers to the imaginary Mongols John Kerry spoke of while he was in the SDS? I'd better stop there, if we delve into that, its enough for two or three more posts. Ah, you wacky libs. You're like the gift that keeps giving, or maybe the guy who keeps kicking you in the junk and taking your wallet.
Back to the point, I'm sure its just a matter of time before the Times corrects this error and regains its impeccable journalistic integrity. Otherwise people are going to begin to think they're just a mouth piece for the Democrat Party and that the NYT's whole reason for existence is to push a liberal agenda, not to report "all the news that's fit to print". But that's just crazy, right?