ANDREW McCARTHY hace lo que en terminos baloncestísticos sería un mate tras otro, a propósito de lo que comenté ayer: la deshonestidad del New York Times al informar de los vínculos entre Saddam y al-Qaeda. Una de las muchas perlas que contiene este artículo demoledor:

Did the Times expect a signing ceremony? What next? "The FBI's organized crime unit concluded today that there probably is no Mafia because the evidence does not describe any formal alliance between shadowy figures who, Vice President Dick Cheney claims, refer to themselves as 'Gambinos' and 'Bonannos'...."

Y Andrew remata su memorable partido del play-off con una canasta de tres puntos mientras el árbitro pita el final del partido:

The Times has been against the Iraq war from the start. Its relentless propaganda, in conjunction with its media allies, has taken a sizable toll. President Bush has taken a ratings hit, and a poll out this morning suggests that a slim majority of Americans now believes the war was a mistake. But that could turn around in a heartbeat. No one is more aware than the "newspaper of record" that if the American people become convinced Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots, the national perception of the necessity for this war will drastically change, and the president's reelection will be a virtual lock.

That's what this is about. And who knows what else the Times is not telling us?