Vanderleun’s nominee for most revolting headline of the year to date:
“Boston Bombing Suspects’ Muslim Identity Provides Few Clues To Motivation For Bombing.”
Via the Puffington Host, but it could have been The Boston Globe which is owned by the NYTimes and later published another bit of denial that was very similar.
Can they succeed in obfuscating the obvious religious motivation? Barry’s minions are certainly gonna try. And his Canadian friends, too.
When will they ever learn? The answer is blowing in the wind.
UPDATE: The numbers speak for themselves. Five Jihadis have reached their targets under King Pinocchio, who chokes on the words terrorist and jihadi. Under Bush the younger, who nevertheless coined the ridiculous phrase “religion of peace”? None.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 
It’s been going on for some time. Here’s a couple of earlier examples:
http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2011/05/havent-clue.html
http://plbirnamwood.blogspot.com/2012/01/washington-post-unclear-about-allahu.html
I lose my patience every time I hear about the “alleged” bombers (or any story about someone who is “alleged” to have done something when it is painfully obvious that it’s true, but the press is too gutless to actually say it). In this case, the two are practically on film, & the survivor has confessed, but these idiots have to be oh so careful.
Indeed it has been going on for a long time, even before Barry won election in ’08. The “alleged,” though, is strictly legal cover. It’s still possible, however remote the possibility may be, that the authorities screwed up. They have been known to do that.
Jaweed Kaleem? Why am Im not surprised?