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;
I appreciate the research but I would have liked to have seen where they made a retraction and/or apology particularly when it has to do with Bush and their cheer leading of his policies.
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.
I am not going to argue this point since the best our comments can be is anecdotal. I will note that O'Reilly, Novak and other conservative pundits have voiced their dissatisfaction with Bush's credibility, particularly when it comes to Iraq. If I were a GOP politico, I would be a bit concerned.
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.
No, it isn't. Iraq had no WMDs.
You can't possibly know that the WMD issue would have been settled if the inspections had continued for another 6 months.
And now, we never will know.
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.
Tim, I won't continue to argue this point with you......I'm sure you feel your approach is the best one for you. However, for me, I think Bush is endangering this country with his policies and I don't think he is an honorable man. There is nothing more that you can say that would dissuade me from that position.
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).
You need to read both the classified and public documents re. Iraq and WMD.....pay close attention to the divergences between the two documents. Any dissuading comments were deleted from the public version so that it looked like a foregone conclusion that Iraq had WMD. At a minimum that was gross manipulation if not outright lying.
ted |
