|
|
Saturday, October 18, 2003 |
Used To Be Worth Reading.I am referring to Andrew Sullivan, of course. He's basically retreated from the debate, and pretty much just relies on the "well, you're just a damn liberal" defense:
Cripes. Why don't we look at them, one by one? I am not sure I can defend myself against a charge of being under a "guise of objectivity", otherwise...
In other words, the statements are factually correct, and arguable only in their degree. What Andrew is really upset about is the very first sentence: The words "running into trouble". I guess he doesn't think the media should be able to draw mean conclusions like that...those words trigger his accusations. What follows them, fact, fiction, or opinion, doesn't matter to him. Remember it whenever you read that kind of crap. 11:19:33 PM |
My Mendacity.I wrote:
RDB wrote:
Dear RDB: Call me a liar? You are a dick. Plain and simple. "Bush's Private Little War of Political Change": Bush: He is the guy in charge, in case you hadn't noticed. Private: The publicly stated reasons for the war (WMD, terrorism) are not the real ones. Little: There's little in the way of combat, death, or anything much else. Except dollars, of course. Please see any text on World War I or II, if you'd like to see an example of a large war. War: We attacked them with military force. We occupy the country. Political: There was no immininent threat from Iraq, and no military threat. Terrorism is a social crime, not a military threat. Change: The regime change in Iraq is an attempt to change the region for the better. The merits of this approach are quite debatable, even as the goals are admirable. Feel free to expand your post to something beyond "you are a liar, Ross". Pick a word, any word, and disagree. Otherwise, crawl back into your hole. Close the lid (tightly, like a bug jar). 10:44:53 PM |