Comments on: A Sensible Reaction

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:39:20 +0000

Well, I don’t totally agree with the way that’s worded. I should have pointed that out when I singled it out…it’s true that the trial was not about those issues, and it would be hypocritical for me to single out for condemnation voices tying the trial to those issues on the left while praising a similar tying of the issues just because I liked the conclusion better, but that’s kind of what I did there.

What I hoped to highlight, and the point I should have made better, is that evidence from the trial just as easily supports the opposite conclusion than the one being drawn by most partisan opponents of President Bush.

But yeah, good catch, the way I presented it was kind of a case of me trying to have my cake and eat it, too. The wording I would prefer would be something along the lines of:

The evidence presented at the trial did not convincingly support the prosecution’s theory of motive, despite the broad-based conclusions being drawn by anti-Bush partisans. However, the prosecution did succeed for the most part in proving the narrower charges explicitly before the jury.

By: Fargus

Fargus — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:25:11 +0000

So you say, Mark, in agreement with the Post, that the trial proved that there was no concerted effort to out Plame?

How come just a few posts ago you were making the point that the trial wasn’t about that at all?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:10:21 +0000

Oh, fine, I just don’t like Atrios – happy? Anyway, my original point is that I wasn’t surprised Atrios would call the WaPo editor a ‘wanker’ for daring to have an opinion that didn’t match his own – and that’s the MO of Media Matters to a ‘T’, an organization with which he is associated…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 18:52:16 +0000

What does any of that have to do with Atrios in specific? It’s guilt by association then? Not to mention the fact that the Newsweek piece is complete puffery, not a “positive opinion”. All complete puffery pieces need to be called out. They’re asinine and they add no value to the public discourse. Baseless truisms are bullspit (because typing the “p” made that comment acceptable…)

By: too many steves

too many steves — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:56:58 +0000

“Rather, he has been convicted of telling the truth about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame to some reporters but then not owning up to it.”

Which is called “lying”. That it happened while under oath to tell the truth to a grand jury is, in fact, the point. Big swing and a miss by the Journal today.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:38:23 +0000

Also, read here for how Media Matters is in the tank for Hillary...

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:24:22 +0000

Look, I know we’re on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but seriously – have you looked at Media Matters much? It’s a joke! They constantly ‘expose’ how some media figure dared to have an opinion that differed from liberal orthodoxy – it’s laughable, really.

Look at this item blasting Newsweek for daring to have a positive opinion of Rudy Giuliani…it’s all too typical…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 17:17:14 +0000

How so? No evidence? Just a truism…hmmm, not surprised much.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:57:27 +0000

No, I’m just saying Atrios is a hack…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:11:03 +0000

So, you’re going to use the left’s ad hominem attacks on them…fight fire with fire. Whatever floats your boat dude.