No evidence is necessary

They don't even try to hide it. The AFP has written quite possibly the worst news story ever. Now, it's nothing new that the media contradicts itself - but it rarely does so in one article.

The article claims that Bush, being "bogged down by the unpopular war" "hammers" "unnamed critics." What?

Regardless of the assumptions latent in the article that Bush is worthless and his speeches are desperate and staged comes this bold statement:

His remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.

Ah - so Bush did all of this because he knew that the terror plot was coming through? So their evidence follows this statement up, right?

But Bush aides on Thursday fought the notion that they had exploited their knowledge of the coming British raid to hit Democrats, saying the trigger had been the defeat of Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut by an anti-war political novice.

"The comments were purely and simply a reaction" to Democratic voters who "removed a pro-defense Senator and sent the message that the party would not tolerate candidates with such views," said Snow.

The public relations offensive "was not done in anticipation. It was not said with the knowledge that this was coming," the spokesman said.

Wait, so Tony Snow and other Bush aides deny that premise? So why is it listed in a news story? Are assumptions now all that is necessary to report on world events? Or should it be so obvious that George Bush is evil that no evidence of his treachery is necessary?

Oh, but wait for it - the unnamed sources!

But Bush's Republicans hoped the raid would yield political gains.

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

That's right - those "on condition of anonymity" people are at it again. Boy, isn't it strange that those conservatives, Bush supporters, and White House aides seem to always make anonymous statements that back up the premise of media articles and are usually very damaging to those they supposedly work for?

In summary: regardless of what the administration says (and any evidence whatsoever) they are using the foiled UK terror plot to bolster themselves before the November elections. Oh, and the usual "anonymous sources" agree. Is it just me, or is the media a complete joke?