John, this is really lame. I could go back on this thread and dig up what everybody said, but frankly, it's not worth my time. The Left (which the NYTimes is a part of, in everybody's eyes but yours and your Naderite cousins) opposed the war. To say that they didn't oppose the war, they just opposed a military attack on the Taliban - "means, not end" - is pure sophistry.
Well, as I just typed to Bill, it reassures me about harmony in the universe when you and I disagree. Of course, I never need to worry about your comments.
As for my use of sophistry, that's just bad thinking on your part. If you've got things to argue, please argue them. As for your comments about the Times, you'll have to do better than all that. The campaign against Al Q was simply not an issue; the means were, of course. But that's hardly new. Healthy political debate and all.
As for the last paragraph, particularly the contrast of a "left" that wailed and citizens of Kabul dancing with joy, suggests you are considering applying to be a speech writer for Bush's 04 campaign. Good luck. ;-) |
