But Al Qaeda, it became horrifyingly clear a week later in Riyadh, was not decimated; it was sufficiently undecimated to murder 34 people, injure 200 and scare the daylights out of Americans everywhere.
Like I said earlier, this is a rather transparent attempt to get the heat off for misquoting Bush last week. You can bet there's a lot of squirming going on at the Times.
But while she gets the quote right this time, she STILL gets the meaning wrong. She still maintains that Bush is saying Al Qaeda isn't a problem anymore. In addition, if you read Bush's quote, it says that the terrorist organization "is slowly, but surely, being decimated". Note the tense, "is being" implies that we are still in the process of "decimating" them. However, in the next paragraph she says that "Al Qaeda...was not decimated". No Maureen, it would be impossible for Al Queda to be decimated when it is still being decimated.
Just more Mo playing with words instead of herself.
An obvious, and pathetic, ploy.
Ahh, I see you have picked up on the subtle "nuances" that Ms. Dowd and her ilk are so proud of. Or maybe, Dowd et al simply do not know how to write.
Maureen Dowd could make bacon taste like tuna. I consider that a sufficiently nuanced statement as well. And I can't write worth a darn.