REUTERS: THE IDIOTARIAN NEWS SERVICE

Gotta love a little bias shift in this Reuters story about a Powell speech before the Council on Foreign Relations. The substance of the speech is that invading Iraq and removing Saddam could pose short-term snags for the US, but shows a good possibility of fixing some the MidEast's deeper problems in the long term. It's a view I happen to share, but that's not why I wrote this post. The tone of Reuters' writing is amusing:

The Bush administration has usually confined its argument for attacking Iraq to the alleged threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government could pass them on to extremists hostile to the United States.

They've stepped away from using "terrorists," which they always put in quotes, and have adopted "extremists" instead. There is a significant semantic difference between the terms--a terrorist by definition attacks targets outside the accepted rules of warfare, such as civilians, medical workers assisting those injured in attacks, and the like. Extremists, on the other hand, might be legitimate fighters fighting by legitimate means. They could be the Barry Goldwaters of the Islamic world from Reuters' point of view.

I just found the change in terms interesting. It might reflect a change in Reuters' thinking since Powell's powerful testimony yesterday. A sea change on the Iraq question may really be coming, if even Reuters finds itself forced to adjust its language. After all, if Mary McGrory can change her Bush-hating mind, I suppose anyone can.

UPDATE: And speaking of Reuters, note the glee with which they report on this British anti-war play. No terms in quotes here, just happy jolly flying the bird at America.

(thank to Hanks for the tip)