The New York Times is Driving Me Insane

The New York Times is truly a sickening newspaper. It makes me literally ill.

Terrorist Munt Ahmen Ghailani - Almost
 Walked Free From Terror Trial,
and the Times is Cool With That 

In an astonishing, irresponsible and downright shameful opinion piece entitled "Don't Agree With Verdict? It's injustice!," Times camrade Clyde Haberman oozes sympathy for Islamic Tanzanian terrorist Ahmed Ghailani, the first and only Guantanamo detainee to be tried in civilian court as per the wishes of the Fraudulent One and against the wishes of the majority. Of the 285 terror-related charges levied against this verminous specimen from a far-away land, it was found not guilty of all but one - conspiracy to bomb a government building. A slap on the wrist for a creature it would be pretty safe to make predictions about, one who in a sane world would be universally reviled for participating in the killing of hundreds - including its own kind - and for costing taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars to be housed, fed, cared for, and provided free legal services.

But the New York Times does not speak for sanity: they think of this POS as a hero from an oppressed land and a martyr in the noble fight against Western exceptionalism.

It makes us sick here at COTT to think that we breath the same air as this murdering Tanzanian mutation of nature.

But when it comes to hating, the New York Times just can't seem to focus their rage on a reasonable target. In the case of the much-condemned Ghailani verdict, Haberman attempts to belittle a Republican congressman who expressed outrage at the relatively short sentence.

"What troubled the congressman — and, for sure, others — was the jury’s surprising verdict of not guilty on all charges save one that the government had brought against Mr. Ghailani for his role in the terrorist bombings of American Embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people and wounded thousands in 1998.

Many New Yorkers and other Americans, perhaps most, would surely have been happier had the jurors not acquitted Mr. Ghailani of the scores of murder counts against him. But the single finding of guilty was hardly small potatoes."

You really have to read those two paragraphs twice to get a sense of just how desperately the Times attempts to push through their War on Common Sense at any cost.

It's almost like they know how ridiculous it is to even take such positions, but their Bigger Agenda must always go before honest reporting or even logical thinking.

Haberman writes this unbelievably insipid bit of reasoning, exposing himself for the twisted delusional white liberal he really is, secretly in love perhaps with the hirsute Ghailani:

"Mr. Ghailani, 36, faces a sobering 20 years to life behind bars.

Is there anyone who seriously doubts that the only way he will leave prison is using a walker or lying in a box?"

Excuse me Clyde?, you lying criminal?! With sick liberals like you to do their his bidding, and with time served, Ghailani could easily be out within five years. Lockerbe Bomber anyone?

Like a mischievous school boy who can barely contain his delight as the teacher mistakenly scolds a hated rival for his pranks, the simple minded, criminally delusional Haberman jumps for joy that, yet again, that the enemy won. 


But it gets worse! 


At the end of the article, Clyde-boy makes a perverse reference to other famous New York murder trials, including the shooting death trial of Belarus-born NYPD rookie cop Russel Timoshenko by the three charming individuals pictured below. 


While lambasting the simple minded right-wingers who did not see the wisdom in practically setting this terrorist free, Haberman writes that "...those who cry injustice when verdicts displease them"...are a common, unfortunate reality among less enlightened New Yorkers.  What is simply unbelievable, though, is that the "injustice" Haberman is referring to in the Tomoshenko case, is the injustice of an early mistrial in the case that almost set the murderers free, an outcome that Haberman and the Times would have considered a true victory.

or - 

Guess Whose Side the Times Took ? 

Check out this very sensible New York Post take on the Ghailani case: after having read the Haberman piece, it will feel like you just emerged from the smashed rear window of a submerged car.