The military says they've found three instances of intentional "mishandling" of the Quran. So how does the NYT, the paper that now loves Rick Man-Dog-Sex Santorum, report on it?
In fact, this is what AP had to say about the story:
Hood said the five cases "could be broadly defined as mishandling" of the holy book, but he refused to discuss details.But of course, DOD won't tell us the details of what happened, so we have no way of knowing what they mean by "mishandling." These are the same people who routinely lie about, well, just about everything, including telling us just last week that there were no incidents of anything involving the Quran. And rather than demand that DOD give us the full story, the NYT simply rolls over and exonerates them because that's what good journalists do in the American SSR.
In three of the five cases, the mishandling appears to have been deliberate. In the other two, it apparently was accidental.
