NYT: "Plot Was Unlikely To Work"

In the New York Times' reporting of the foiled JFK plot, it takes four paragraphs for the reader to learn the suspects had violent "fundamentalist Islamic beliefs."

The Times then immediately makes note of the lack of an al Qaeda connection, as if less people would have somehow died if al Qaeda wasn't involved.

(It's also worth noting the article refers to South America in error, when it meant to refer to South Africa).

Yet, the most obnoxious effort by the New York Times pertains to a "related" link to the left of the column, titled: "Plot was unlikely to work, experts say."

Although this wouldn't necessarily be characterized as being a terrorist apologist, why does the NYT feel the need to play down the danger? Six years ago, how many people would have thought it likely that four aiplanes could be hijacked in tandem and smashed into U.S. landmarks? Meanwhile, CBS noted that: FBI Official Believes Attack Could've Been Worse Than 9/11.

The NYT should act more serious.

Update: The liberal Blogosphere (DailyKos) just noted the plot. They believe the U.S. government is... "full of sh*t". I'm serious.