Explaining Google Searches to the NY Times

This is the email I sent to NY Times on 9/8/06:

"The possibility that Saddam Hussein might develop “weapons of mass destruction” and pass them to terrorists was the prime reason Mr. Bush gave in 2003 for ordering the invasion of Iraq." [This was from an article they published.]


That is such a line of crap. Bush never said "possibility" or "might develop". When you write such slop, you look like fools. - Dancewater

In a message dated 9/8/2006 3:37:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, public@nytimes.com writes:

Dear [Name withheld],

Thank you for writing. But which article are you referring to?

Sincerely,
Michael McElroy
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times

So, this is what I wrote back:

In the handy-dandy little thing known as a GOOGLE SEARCH you can find the article that the quote come from (but it's in your own paper - don't you read your own paper? I guess not!) and I have provided two links to the same article below.

(two links here were removed, due to blogger)

I have no idea why there would be two links to the same article. Do you know how to do a GOOGLE SEARCH? Please reply and please give your permission to place your response on my blog.

Thank you. - Dancewater

PS. Since you and your staff seem to be hopelessly dumb, here's a few words of wisdom for you: IRAN DOES NOT HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO GETTING THEM. It looks like the imaginary WMDs did not slow you all down, or wise you up, one bit. You must be overcome with tremendous feelings of shame every time you think of "WMDs In Iraq", no?

Well, they never responded, and they did not give me permission to use the email on my blog. I decided to use it anyway. I think this would be really funny if it were not so pathetic.