The New York Times, in an editorial on Monday, criticized President Bush for not taking immediate action on the August 6 PDB. Said the Times (hold onto your hat):
He could, for instance, have left his vacation in Texas after receiving that briefing memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." and rushed back to the White House, assembled all his top advisers and demanded to know what, in particular, was being done to screen airline passengers to make sure people who fit the airlines' threat profiles were being prevented from boarding American planes.I'm sure you can already see how self-evidently ridiculous this is coming from the New York Times, but just in case you can't, Michelle Malkin today fills in the blanks:
That's right. The same editorial board that has barbecued the Bush Justice Department after the Sept. 11 attacks for fingerprinting young male temporary visa holders traveling from terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations (editorial, June 6, 2002); temporarily detaining asylum seekers from high-risk countries for background screening (editorial, Dec. 28, 2002); and sending undercover agents to investigate mosques suspected of supporting terrorism (editorial, May 31, 2002) now expects us to believe it would have applauded Bush for his vigilance if he had swiftly ordered airport security officials to stop thousands of young Middle Eastern men at airports during the summer of 2001 on the basis of an ill-defined threat.Such hypocricy would be breathtaking in any other context, but is simply the same old same old from the Times. Perhaps the Times' editors, instead of sniping, could take some time to examine their own substantial role (along with the ACLU, which believe it or not even opposes airport metal detectors in its official policy book) in creating and fostering the hospitable atmosphere the 19 hijackers found on U.S. soil.
I wouldn't hold my breath, though.