- Sep 12, 2004
No, this isn't about your lame ad hom remark about the Weekly Standard. It's about you failing to refute a single point in that article. I really don't care what YOUR opinion of the WS is and trying to wave the content of the article away with a derisive flick of your hand is pitiful and weak, and you know it.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Gee, the brilliancy of reading a thread and then adding two posts together to make a point :roll:Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any such analysis will be ignored, just like the NY Times, WaPo, Boston Globe and the vast majority of the MSM have ignored the actual facts around these documents and the report. Most likely someone in here will come along and sneer at the fact this is from the Weekly Standard as well, as if such an ad hom comment nullifies the article.Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's another perspective and an examination of the initial leak and subsequent press coverage. I've bolded one paragraph in particular -- sorry for the article length. Interesting coverage regardless:
Right on cue.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
^^I hope you don't believe that crap. The Weekly Standard? :roll:
Please enlighten us as to how or why The Weekly Standard should be or is a respected news publication. Please show also how they are non-bias & have no direct connection to the Bush administration or their agenda.
For the record to those who read this post. This is about The Weekly Standard and their bias or connections to the Bush administration.