The Gray Lady that is The New York Times, fresh from having its eye blackened (no pun intended) by the Jayson Blair incident, didn't have much time to catch her breath as another case of "expanding the truth" came into the spotlight. Pulitzer Prize winning Op-Ed writer and liberal flag-bearer Maureen Dowd has been caught omitting verbiage from a quote she used made in one of President Bush's speeches.

In a piece that was published the same day that the paper addressed the Jayson Blair incident, Dowd wrote that President Bush declared al Qaida wasn't a threat anymore. This couldn't have been further from the truth and it definitely wasn't an accurate quote of what the President said.

As pointed out on Fox News, Dowd removed a section of what was said to tailor the president's words to fit her needs. As she espoused her contempt for the Bush Administration in light of the most recent bombings attributed to al Qaida in Saudi Arabia, Dowd asserted that the president had declared al Qaida "not a problem anymore." This was inaccurate at best.

The president's words were not only taken out of context but also deliberately manipulated to further a story that Dowd submitted for publication. The president was speaking of how al Qaida had been diminished around the world. He was referring to the roughly one-half of al Qaida’s network that had either been detained or destroyed and added, "They aren't a problem anymore." Dowd neglected to point out in her piece that the president was talking about those who were captured or dead and made it sound as thought the president was referring to al Qaida as a whole.

This is how it all starts.

These are two examples of "expanding the truth" that have occurred at The New York Times in three days. That's not a bad average if you are a member of a sports team. But the fact is Maureen Dowd is not on a sports team, she is a celebrated columnist and a voice that is supposed to espouse the truth everywhere, all the time, always. For her to casually pull quotes out of context to further her point in an opinion-editorial that people (sheeple) base their political opinions on is derelict.

It is no secret that Dowd is a liberal. All one has to do is read her columns and that becomes apparent. At this point what is not so apparent is the credibility of her research-based opinion. One would have to go back over each piece that she has written over the years to double check every accusation that she has made for validity. It is something that the readers of the New York Times shouldn't have to do.

Once again the award for shoddy editing goes to The New York Times and once again the shame needs to be shouldered by a New York Times columnist.

Retractions and clarifications do little to rectify any damage done when something like this happens. The "sitcom attention span" of a big portion of the American public doesn't compute the retractions and clarifications. It is hard for these people (sheeple) to gnaw on raw data and come up with a common sense answer to questions that bother them so. To have to return to a thought they have formulated based on something that Ms. Dowd or Jayson Blair wrote weeks ago is akin to asking Michael Jackson not to be so amazingly strange. It will never happen.

Now the question is, will the New York Times require Ms. Dowd to end her relationship with the paper as it did Jayson Blair? Or will it allow her to clarify and retract? One could suggest if she is not required to end her relationship with the paper The New York Times would be guilty of being racist. Of course one could suggest if they do require her to end her relationship with the paper they would be guilty of being gender bias as Blair, a man, was a known plagiarist and they chose to overlooked it. Either way, I wouldn't want to be an editor or an owner of The Gray Lady...they have become all the news that's fit to print.