Really, Tim, the NRO lost me when one of their articles suggested we might have to declare war on France.
The article I quoted was on Townhall not NRO.
As for NRO I seem to remember some satirical or humorous article that talked about invading France, but even if it was a serious proposal (rather then a joke, a piece of satire, or a proposal for a response in a hypothetical and very unlikely situation) I don't see how that should eliminate ideas from NRO from serious consideration even if it does eliminate NRO from the list of sites you would ordinarily read.
First, I believe I've read both articles and found neither humorous. Secondly, publications as ideological and serious as NRO and Townhall rarely are humorous or mean something to be a joke even when it appears to be humorous or a joke.
But more importantly, the fact that they would even joke about something like that at a time when we are internally divided over the issue as well as divided from our traditional allies puts them just about a yellow journalistic 'rag' in my mind.
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.
Its one thing to say that you don't take Coulter seriously because of some of her statements. Its another to not even consider the writings of Buckley or Sowell or George Will as anything other then garbage written by people with questionable integrity just because they happen to be on the same web site as other articles that you find false or objectionable.
I respect both Buckley and Will but I don't trust the NRO or Townhall. Frankly, I think the conservative publications and institutions have lost their moral compass so eager are they to fully implement and prove their ideology. And its getting worse as things start to unravel.
Furthermore, they rarely admit when they are wrong......unlike the NY Times and other more mainstream publications.
The article you posted starts out by saying that someone has to be rabidly anti Bush to suggest the president lied. You all just don't get it. There is a growing number of Americans who once were pro Bush who think he lied about WMDs......and they are angry.
If you don't start off from the anti-Bush perspective then there isn't enough evidence that the statements about the Iraqi WMD where lies.
Tell it to those people who have been pro Bush and now are changing their tune. The only people who don't believe something is rotten in Denmark re. Iraq and Bush's claim of WMD are those who are rabid conservatives and/or rabid supporters of Bush. BTW they are rapidly approaching the cult stage in their beliefs.
NRO and Townhall can point out all the people who thought that Saddam might have WMDs but that does not change the fact that a responsible, competent, intelligent president would have let the weapons inspectors do their job before throwing this nation into a war that could go on indefinitely and cost us lives and billions of dollars.
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.
Also the war has and will have positive consequences as well as negative.
The issue is whether the positive will outweigh the negative and what will the cost be to us.
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. At a minimum, Bush is guilty of a gross manipulation of the info. he gave to the American people about pre war Iraq and at a maximum, he lied. Given his past deeds, I don't think he has much character so I would not be surprised if he lied.
ted |
