Sometimes Andrew Sullivan is simply amazing. He has recently been in a tedious little tiff with Glenn Reynolds and Mickey Kaus (who is telling one side of the story, who is being inconsistent, etc.) that I was mostly able to ignore. Tonight, however, he has outdone even himself:
GLENN’S DEFENSE: He argues that he only covers good news from Iraq because the mainstream media is doing all the rest. But doesn’t that prove my point? He’s deliberately covering only half the story. How that differs from putting fingers in his ears when bad news emerges, I don’t know.
Let’s see- Glenn covers half the story. The MSM covers the other half.
1/2 + 1/2 = Mass Fucking Confusion for Andy
Maybe his point is that he is aware of the bad news but deliberately eschews any reference to it on the blog.
Getting warmer. Except he doesn’t eschew any reference to it- he implicitly and explicitly acknowledges the negative side of the story every time he MOCKS THE MEDIA FOR ONLY TELLING THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF THE STORY.
My criticism of Belmont Club and Powerline is simply that they defend anything and everything done by the Bush administration. I may be wrong here, because I haven’t read their every word.
If you haven’t read their every word, perhaps claiming they will defend ‘anything and everything’ may be a bit much, ehh?
So can anyone point me to a critique of the Bush administration in any way that has appeared on either blog?
Ya lazy bastard. In other words, your accusation stands until someone does the research and tells you otherwise? YOur readers really are getting a helluva return on the 100k in donations you got last year.
I’d be happy to be corrected. Even pro-war, pro-Bush writers must have some small criticism occasionally? Just asking … And is there any conservative blog out there that can criticize my work without some poster eventually imputing it to AIDS dementia?
If it makes you feel better, I think you were drunk when you wrote this. At least I hope so.