The New York Times headline reads: "Bush, in Shift, Accepts Idea of Iraq Timeline." From reading the headline and the article, one might assume President Bush changed his mind on something, right? Wrong.
"The president and prime minister agreed that the goals would be based on continued improving conditions on the ground and not an arbitrary date for withdrawal," said White House press secretary Dana Perino in a statement e-mailed to reporters.
News flash to the NYTimes, read your e-mail --
These "goals," such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, are the same goals as always, and are in fact the "timetable" as such.
The NYTimes article goes on to say that "Mr. Bush" -- meaning, I presume, the President of the United States -- our President -- "has long derided timetables for troop withdrawals" and has now at least agreed to a "notional" one.
I could be wrong here, but this war in Iraq has been around for a number of years now, wouldn't you say? You'd think the NYTimes would get the "notion" by now of what is meant by a responsible troop withdrawal. But noooooo. A timetable without specific dates is front page news. Incredible!
So, today's "Bird Award" goes to the New York Times for flaunting sheer stupidity.
I give you....
The Bird
