Thursday, February 09, 2006

Looking for "Chagrin"

So, I'm sure everyone has heard about President Bush's announcement that a plot against the Library Tower in LA, the tallest building in the country west of the Mississippi, was foiled back in 2002.

Of course, this good news probably didn't sit too well with the folks at the Los Angeles Times, who wasted no time in finding people who work in the building to carp about the whole thing in an article titled "Post-Threat Chagrin Around the Tower."
Employees in and around the U.S. Bank Tower reacted with concern, confusion and skepticism to President Bush's reference this morning to a terrorist threat four years ago against the high-rise building.

"I thought it was something recent," said Erol Andal, who manages the Petite Cafe sandwich shop just outside the building. "All I heard was that somebody had a shoe bomb at LAX."
That must be the "confusion" noted in the opening paragraph.
Other downtown employees saw the new details as a political move by Bush to "keep us living in fear" and garner support for the war on terrorism.

"It's a travesty.... I mean, we've caught him lying so many times," said Mark Lea, who works at a major law firm in the Wells Fargo building next door. "He's only doing this to draw up support for his domestic spying."
So, Bush is lying about this? I guess Mr. Lea thinks so, though he gives no evidence. Note that his political affiliation, for some reason, is not mentioned. I guess that's not important in a story like this one. On the other hand, if he had, say, signed his voter registration form in an amusing fashion, well, that might be a horse of a different color.

Anyway, let's get back to the completely non-partisan chagrin:
Patrick Grover, who works on the tower's 2nd floor, agreed.

"I'm not alarmed [by the threats]," Grover said. "I'm alarmed that they're exploiting it years later."

Grover called Bush's announcement "malarkey," criticizing the president for supposedly setting up a "smokescreen" now that the administration's spying policies are under attack.
Now, I realize that L.A. skews pretty blue, but couldn't the author of the piece find a single, solitary person who thought the announcement of a foiled terrorist attack was good news? I mean, it's not like she only went to the area looking specifically for negative reactions, right?

1 comment:

Muslihoon said...

"I mean, it's not like she only went to the area looking specifically for negative reactions, right?"

Ah, the agenda-mindedness of journalists!

People who accuse Bush of lying? I don't like them one bit. Idiots they are, in my mind.