Saturday, January 13, 2007

Engaged in battle at Press Think 
Once again.

At issue: Well, Rosens' opening post is - well - rather incoherent. Not sure what to make of it, other than an exercise in nonlinear reasoning and conclusions enencumbered by any factual foundation.

What's happening here, once again, is I'm taking issue with a series of the underlying postulates underlying their position, and trying to bring the debate back to the facts on the ground - both as we understood them in 2003 and as we know know them to be today.

The reaction is juvenile as usual, but entertaining if you like that sort of thing.

Why engage there?

Because much of Rosen's audience consists of opinion makers - journos themselves - and only a small minority post there.

Splash, out


Given Armitrage's history of support against the war, how do we know that the decision came from Cheney? It sounds more like something Armitrage would do and then not acknowledge.

Your point about what we supposedly know now vs what we knew then is valid but don't expect the journalists to take that into account. It doesn't fit their scenario so they disregard it or else assume that we knew then what we know now.
oog. I gotta read another one of those?
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Meter

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!

Prev | List | Random | Next
Powered by RingSurf!