Say it ain't so.

I wish it were'nt true, but this guy raises some legitimate points.


The Raving Norseman said...

What's that they say about a broken clock?

Sure, he raises some legitimate points. It's unfortunate that they're obscured behind his own semantic games and outright lies.

Assail Bush for not seeing a spending bill he didn't like, and you've got a point. Get after him for growing the government when a real conservative would look for ways to shrink it, and you're on the money. But when the article leads with an assumptive statement about a debatable point (invading a country on false pretenses? What, did the guy leave the office long enough for Cindy Sheehan to type that, or is he as convinced of that "slam dunk" as Tenet was of his? Real historians will be debating the "false pretenses" claim for some time, but this guy thinks the debate's over?); when the writer has to put words in his adversary's mouth and twist their meaning (Bush's actual quote was "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" --and it was clearly directed at leaders of countries accused of harboring terrorists, not American citizens, as even a cursory look at the transcript of the SOTU would reveal to the "journalist"); when the writer resorts to blaming Bush for things others said (the "unpatriotic" link goes to another article, not about Bush, but about David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter who has said some not very nice things about anti-war folk. Having once worked for Bush, this apparently makes everything he says directly attributable to Bush); then any sensible argument in the rest of the article is lost.

GeeGuy said...

Hence my use of the term: "some."


The Raving Norseman said...

And I admitted that.

But the guy's still more of a doofus than not. ;)