Wow, this is really something worth mentioning and repeating as often as necessary. Maureen Dowd, the typical New York Times liberal writer, has a new column out called The Unslammed Phone where she talks about the new documentary about the Clinton administration’s involvement in 9/11.

But even Dowd can’t fight back against the truth of the matter in this case. Normally liberals will hold on to their lies with all their might, refusing to admit any bits of truth that might upset their precious little fantasy world that they live in. So to see Maureen Dowd give in and admit that Bill Clinton was responsible for September 11th, well, it just warms the heart. It shows that we are finally making some progress against the rediculous liberal bias in the media.

Dowd writes

Bill was distracted by the Monica fallout, just as W. was distracted, on Osama and Katrina, by his insistence on living life as usual in Crawford. Bill had no natural inclination to use American force and fumbled on how to strike back at Osama. W., petulantly, did not want to focus on terrorism because his predecessor had.

Wow. She openly says that Clinton was distracted by his Monica Lewinsky mess, and fumbled against Osama. Oh my God. If that isn’t something worth standing up and calling attention to, I don’t know what is. Here we have a liberal actually putting some of the blame of September 11th on Bill Clinton. Obviously everyone realizes the New York Time’s natural extreme liberal bias makes this article far kinder to Clinton than he deserves. That means that Clinton is hugely responsible for 9/11. We have the proof right here, Maureen Dowd admits it!

Here’s how she ended her column

The argument over which president is to blame for 9/11 is tiresome. Both obviously bear some blame. There are no West Wing heroes in this story.

We all know that Bush is not to blame, that’s just the typical mainstream media liberal bias seeping into the article. They can’t help it, it’s automatic over there. But seeing them put some of the blame on Clinton himself, well, it just brings a tear to the eye. This is a proud day in truthfulness in reporting, and I have never been prouder of this country.

I bet this will anger their liberal controllers in the Democratic Party, and I have a feeling the New York Times is going to get even more ultra-liberal as a response. But who knows, maybe this is the beginning of the end for them. We can only hope.

Frank Rich has a new column out called “Donald Rumsfeld’s Dance With the Nazis.” I apologize in advance if I get too outraged over this, but just look at that title!

First of all, Rich is saying that Rumsfeld is very friendly with Nazis. I don’t see how this can possibly be true. Rumsfeld was even pointing out how all the liberals that were trying to stop the spread of freedom in the world were like the people who ignored the spread of Nazis before World War II. Doesn’t that mean that Rumsfeld doesn’t like Nazis at all?

But then he goes and uses the word dance, which is just more of the Hollywood liberal gay brainwashing campaign. He doesn’t talk about it any more, but the title is definitely saying that Donald Rumsfeld has a homosexual love for Nazi men. That’s disgusting, but no less then you would expect from these types.

In a decent society the New York Times would put out an apology saying that Donald Rumsfeld is not a gay Nazi at all, but I’m not expecting to see that any time soon. I’m sure they won’t fire Frank Rich over this either. It’s really a hothouse of fascism over there, and they seem to really and truly hate America. Disgusting.

Paul Krugman tries to speak for the whole country in his latest article, “Hoping For Fear”:

All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won’t go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself.

Well, you don’t speak for me. I’m certainly not fed up with leadership like that. President Bush and the Republican Party still have my full support in their fights against terror and the enemies of freedom that are threatening our nation, and nothing Paul Krugman or anyone else at the New York Times says about it is going to turn me to their side.

I can’t believe the Al Qaeda types at The New York Times just keep on going like this. Look you liberals, America elected George W. Bush to be our president twice in two separate elections. If that’s not enough proof that America wants him to keep fighting for freedom, then I don’t know what is. Just because you say that America is tired of his incompetence doesn’t make it true.

You keep it up, Mr. President.

Maureen Dowd has a new column called Fetch, Heel, Stall where she talks about the problems with getting President Bush’s microphone turned on when it should be on and off when it should be off.

Oops, they did it again. That pesky microphone problem that plagued George W. Bush and Tony Blair in St. Petersburg struck again at their White House news conference yesterday. The president told technicians to make sure his real thoughts would not be overheard this time, but somehow someone forgot to turn off the feed to my office. As a public service, I’d like to reprint the candid under-their-breath mutterings they exchanged in between their public utterances.

First off, isn’t that treason?  Spying on what the President was saying, and then reprinting it for the whole world to see, including the terrorists?  We knew the New York Times would love to take down American as we know it and replace it with one a little more pinko Communist to fit what they like.  But can’t the government step in here and do something about it?  Now that Maureen Dowd has gone this far to try to help the terrorists defeat America, can’t they finally throw her in jail along with the rest of the moonbats that hate America??

I encourage you to protest by not to reading that “Fetch, Heel, Stall” article.  I stopped reading it after that first paragraph, once I realized that she was going to be printing state secrets and probably highly classified information.  The only way to help stop the spread of it now is to now read it.  Please join me in not reading it, and we can eventually become strong enough to finally put a stop to the nutjobs at The New York Times.

Paul Krugman tries to do a little of that left wing media brainwashing in his column Reign of Error. Maybe its a simple mistake, maybe its really brainwashing, you be the judge

Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.

Now, here’s where the liberals try to play with your mind. He’s reporting good news, namely that more Americans are finally realizing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction after all. Sure its only 50%, but we’re getting closer. It’s hard with the left wing media controlling everything, they don’t want you to know the truth. But Americans are smarter than those liberals give them credit for. You guys are seeing the truth, and congratulations to you.

Did you notice the tricky part? Read it again. Its at the very beginning. Did you catch it? Paul Krugman calls the fact that more Americans know the truth about Iraq, depressing news. Depressing? Hardly. That’s great news. There’s always the chance that Krugman just made a mistake, and meant to say that this is good news after all. But since he writes for the New York Times, I don’t think that’s what’s going on.  I think he meant to call it depressing news.  It makes “Reign of Error” the perfect title for that article, doesn’t it?

Maybe for the ultra-liberals at the New York Times it’s bad news, since it means that America is seeing through their constant lies and manipulation about the Iraq War. Maybe I should call them “lie-berals” Hahaha. No I’m kidding I didn’t make that one up, I’ve heard that before. It sure is a good name for them, though.