Why the NY Times and Bill "Always Wrong" Kristol can blow each other, from a kick-ass piece by Mark Crispin Miller:
[T]his controversy is based not on "liberal" animosity against "conservative" opinion. It is based, rather, on a public expectation that the New York Times will not provide a weekly forum to a propagandist with no interest in the truth, but keenly interested in defending this administration's foreign policy -- the facts be damned.
Showcasing Kristol's "views" might be acceptable if they had not been catastrophically discredited by (what one might dare call) reality. His lousy record as a pundit should be quite sufficient to disqualify him for this job. But that's not all that weighs against him here. There's his blunt "view" that the Times should have been prosecuted for reporting news unpleasant to the Bush administration. That's no mere innocuous opinion, but a chirp of fascism; and fascism is, or certainly should be, beyond the realm of tolerable opinion.
Showcasing Kristol's "views" might be acceptable if they had not been catastrophically discredited by (what one might dare call) reality. His lousy record as a pundit should be quite sufficient to disqualify him for this job. But that's not all that weighs against him here. There's his blunt "view" that the Times should have been prosecuted for reporting news unpleasant to the Bush administration. That's no mere innocuous opinion, but a chirp of fascism; and fascism is, or certainly should be, beyond the realm of tolerable opinion.
What he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment