(a) Brian Eno (b) Radical Islamists (c) ANSWER (d) Chuck0 (e) General Wallace (f) The New York Times (g) Dennis Kucinich (h) "nattering nabobs of negativism" (i) Colin Powell (j) anti-war elementary school kids
SPOILER BELOW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?
tmpl=story&u=/ucac/20030328/cm_ucac/the_enemy_within&cid=108&ncid=1501
(f) (half credit for h)
Not surprisingly, The New York Times gave Saddam's recent speech more exultant coverage than they did Bush's State of the Union address. Since the first bomb hit Baghdad, everyone at the Times had been itching to use the word "quagmire." Somewhat surprisingly, Saddam beat even Maureen Dowd to the punch, thus allowing the Times to use "quagmire" with abandon the day after his speech. Not only that, but according to Saddam -- and the Times -- the invading forces are "in real trouble." The Times isn't afraid we'll do badly in Baghdad; it's afraid we'll do well.
After the Arab television network al-Jazeera repeatedly ran footage of U.S. prisoners of war over the weekend, the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) threw al-Jazeera reporters off the trading floor. They ought to remove the Times.