allegedly…
A recent article from CNN/Money began with the following line:
“The Bush administration launched a war on terror because of the alleged acts of Osama bin Laden.”
Alleged acts. Alleged??? Is CNN/Money “alleging” that the twin towers still exist? Or that the events of September 11th never “allegedly” happened?
This calls to memory the refusal of Reuters to call “militant palestinians” by their correct name: terrorists. The apparent conundrum of media elites at classifying bloodthirsty murderers as such is disturbing, albeit explainable. After all, they are still in denial that the mainstream press is liberal; all the while remaining perfectly capable of pointing out that FoxNews is conservative.
But back to the CNN/Money article…
“The Bush administration pushed for that war, in part, because it said the regime of Saddam Hussein, former leader of Iraq, had ties to the al Qaeda terror network, headed by bin Laden, the group allegedly responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States.”
The obsessive use of the qualifier “alleged” makes sure that the author has a convenient escape hatch available should it come to light that the “Zionist pigs” were actually behind 9/11. I mean, c’mon… Osama did allegedly praise the attacks, he also allegedly took credit for them and he allegedly has subordinates that have confessed to allegedly being involved.
This makes one wonder what the headline would have been had CNN/Money had a website on December 8, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor.
“The United States was allegedly attacked yesterday by the Japanese. President Roosevelt may use this alleged aggression as reason to launch an unnecessary war.”