Palin leaves open option of war with Russia.
If you read the article you learn that she was simply revealing a knowledge of how NATO works. Namely, if any NATO member nation is attacked, all other members are required by treaty to go to their military assistance. Asked if that would require the U.S. to go to war with Russia in the event that Georgia becomes a NATO member and is attacked by Russia, she said "Perhaps so."
Well...duh! Another equally valid title for the same article would have been:
Palin demonstrates knowledge of NATO rules.
Oops, that would have made her look good. Whereas the title they chose made her look bad, particularly to people who don't then read the article.
Can there be any question in a reasonable person's mind that the Associated Press is biased? That they've selected their favorite (Obama) and are doing whatever they can to help him get elected?
Time was when the AP made a pretty good stab at being even-handed. This degree of bias is relatively recent, say, the last 3 election cycles.
When roughly half the population backs each candidate, it is a simply self-defeating business practice to be clearly backing one of them. By doing so the organization ends up ticking off half of their potential readers - not smart. The New York Times has made the same mistake, to its detriment.
