A very common assertion has been, and unfortunately continues to be, that President Bush lied in order to “get” his war on Iraq. Herein I will discuss how these opponents have yet to prove or demonstrate their claims and how recent events e…

Or, since my mind is made up, why should I confuse myself with the facts?

2) If the documents were vetted, obviously the process was deeply flawed. The point is not whether there was no screening or whether the screening was ineffective: the point is that the documents were made available.

3) I was able to read the first half of the article before I had to leave for work, but the salient points (to me, anyway) are that the administration overrode Negroponte to launch a PR campaign which was not properly supervised and resulted in placing nuclear secrets in the public domain. Everything else is minutiae.

4) As for the Times: the public service is not in shutting down the site per se, it is in removing the documents from the public domain, which necessitated shutting down the rest of the site to make sure that other secrets are not also being given out to anyone with an IP address.

Dick Morris, Jay Bryant, Michael Barone, Byron York, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Ronald R. Griffin, Mark Mellman, Charlie Cook, Jonah Goldberg, Stuart Rothenberg, Mike Allen, Hugh Hewitt, Larry J. Sabato, David Wasserman, Peggy Noonan, Lawrence Kudlo…

The documents were in fact vetted, as the article itself states:

The precise review process that led to the posting of the nuclear and chemical-weapons documents is unclear. But in testimony before Congress last spring, a senior official from Mr. Negroponte’s office, Daniel Butler, described a “triage” system used to sort out material that should remain classified. Even so, he said, the policy was to “be biased towards release if at all possible.” Government officials say all the documents in Arabic have received at least a quick review by Arabic linguists.

That may not be thorough enough but it is something.

Might I suggest actually reading the article? (Okay, snarky, I know, but still…)

Finally, I don’t agree that it was a public service to shut down the site. I believe the idea of the site was and is a good idea. Obviously, however, the vetting process was not thorough enough. I’m glad the nuclear documents are down, but it’s too bad that this means the site may go away, too…

Once again New York Times manages to shoot itself, the Democratic party and it’s credibility in the head. In their pathetic attempt to once again influence the American public in the upcoming elections, they have managed to validate the evidence that…

Well, the Times now claims that the information published online included primers on how to build nuclear weapons – information that could prove useful to the likes of Iran. That is, if the Times reporting itself is correct. If the reporting is indee…