SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (54878)7/18/2004 10:13:50 AM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793790
 
Blogdom is all over the NYT story on Wilson this morning. Instapundit:

WILSON-LIED MEDIA SPIN UPDATE: The New York Times initiates another quasi-rowback with this story on the Niger / Uranium flap. But look at the headline, and note what's left out. Or read Tom Maguire's discussion of the Times coverage, and non-coverage:

Some of Mr. Wilson's credibility problems are cited. However, the Times remains sphinx-like on the Senate report finding, undisputed by Mr. Wilson, that the Ambassador gave "misleading information" in anonymous leaks to the Washington Post and by extension, Nick Kristof of the NY Times. They also mention that Mr. Wilson's credibility is challenged by the news that his report to the CIA included information about an Iraqi trade delegation, but they fail to mention that Mr. Wilson omitted this key fact from his famous NY Times op-ed, and they slide past the fact that George Tenet disputed this part of the Wilson op-ed a year ago.

We also note that the Times gives one sentence to the Senate finding that Wilson lied about his wife's involvement, and four sentences to Wilson's response, thereby giving space to Wilson to rebut a case the Times never presents. Bah.

Read the whole thing. You'd think they were more interested in swinging the election than reporting the news, or something.
instapundit.com



To: LindyBill who wrote (54878)7/18/2004 2:04:39 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793790
 
left has won the "rights" battle. They haven't won the "Socialism" battle.

Please illuminate whatever bright line you perceive between the rights battle, entitlements paid for by tax dollars, and whatever you have in mind when you say "socialism."

If by socialism you mean government ownership of the means of production, I understand the difference. But that difference is moot because no one is advocating that in the US. So where's the bright line?