publications as ideological and serious as NRO and Townhall rarely are humorous or mean something to be a joke
That isn't true. The humor may have a point like in political cartoons but national review (both the magazine and NRO) has a fair amount of humor.
"If the New York Times, Washington Post, or LA Times posted some extreme op-ed piece would you assume every article that was written for those papers in the future was worthless crap not even worth the effort to refute?"
That's the point.....they are not likely to print something quite so divisive.
Over the years they have printed a lot that is divisive or inflammatory esp. if you include the op-ed pages.
I respect both Buckley and Will but I don't trust the NRO or Townhall.
I wouldn't dream of asking you to accept NRO or Townhall as an authority, accepting something as true just because it gets posted there (nor would I consider them or other political or even news sites to be such an authority myself). I'm just saying that the credibility of an opinion or news analysis piece is that of the author not the site that publishes it.
Furthermore, they rarely admit when they are wrong......unlike the NY Times and other more mainstream publications.
When they make a direct misstatement of fact they admit they are wrong just like the New York Times usually does when an obvious an easily verifiable error is brought to their attention. As for opinion pieces neither NRO or the Times has a policy of running corrections on the opinion, analysis and speculation that they run, for examples you can follow this link
nationalreview.com
or for a much worse example look at the fact that the Times hasn't repudiated the Pulitzer prize for Duranty's lies/pro-Stalin propaganda.
nationalreview.com
nationalreview.com
lewrockwell.com
Tell it to those people who have been pro Bush and now are changing their tune.
I haven't heard of too many people who where strongly pro-Bush and then changed because of Iraq. Because of spending and deficits yes, tariffs and trade policy maybe, but not many former strong Bush supporters are running around saying Bush lied about WMD.
The inspectors doing their job for another month or 6 would not have caused more certainty about Iraqi WMD then there was from the many years of inspections and attempted inspections before the most recent round.
You can't possibly know that.
I can't KNOW that but its a reasonable conclusion. You can't possibly know that the WMD issue would have been settled if the inspections had continued for another 6 months.
I suspect Mr. Bush will go down in infamy for this misdeed.
"I wait for evidence of an actual misdeed before making statements like that."
Tim, you need to throw a little caution to the wind, and not be quite so literal.
I don't know how my statement in quotes above was overly literal. As for throwing caution to the wind I don't see any reason to throw caution to the wind before accusing someone of committing serious misdeeds when there is no evidence that they did indeed commit these misdeeds.
At a minimum, Bush is guilty of a gross manipulation of the info.
No at a minimum he is guilty only of being wrong (even that's not 100% but at this point its so close that I accept that as a minimum).
Given his past deeds, I don't think he has much character so I would not be surprised if he lied.
Saying you would not be surprised if he lied is a much more reasonable statement then your earlier statements that he did lie and that he committed misdeeds that you suspect will cause him to go down in infamy.
Tim |
