So Kevin Drum, one of the best Democratic bloggers, is an asshat because he does some research?

In any case, his "retort" (posted yesterday) predates Rice's testimony (today).

Kevin (A.)-only feed ... ASAP ... please.

Gee- If you were so interested in accuracy why not note he didn't do the research.

But then we don't want the facts to get in your way now do we.

You're missing the point — it's not a "retort" and therefore your title and opening sentence make no sense.

Unless, of course, it's you "scraping the very bottom of the barrel" with your mistaken example.

When I post something insulting a well-respected blogger, I do make sure I get my facts straight.

When I'm wrong, I issue an correction. (Yes, "research" was the wrong word; I should have said "original commentary".)

I have no problem with the research. I do have a problem finding a negative review of a book she wrote (both written 20 years ago) and brandishing it as a weapon.

First, is either the book or the review relevant to her position today? Second, what was the relationship between the reviewer and Dr. Rice? Even good books get negative reviews.

You missed my point. I don't care.

My point was that it was completely moronic. Why is it that to people like you and Kevin, Clinton dodging the draft was not important because "that was a long time ago" but a single bad book review from 20 years proves something?

It was a moronic post and I pointed that out.
(and it quite an amusing way might I add.)

And lemme explain something to you. If Kevin is the best thing you have going for your side, then you guys are sunk. He repeatedly ignores or distorts facts to suit what ever point he wants to make. Then his tin-fioil hat followers sing his praises.

If you want to wear your tin foil hat proudly Ok fine... But don't expect me to give up my ability to reason.

I really need to work more to come out of my shell. lol

AND BTW... If you look at the post directly below this one you see what you and your side really did today.

You all were convinced putting Condi up there would help you in your quest to politicize the deaths of over 3000 people.

Now that it backfired you want to make stupid points about book reviews or what time a post was posted. Who cares?

The reality is that you are all bitter because you are trying to make political hay and it is not working.

Don't take it out on me!

Paul:

"Your side"? I'm a registered Republican. God forbid, I criticize the GOP or come to the defense of a liberal!

Methinks the blogger doth protest too much.

King:

Kevin D. explains this in the sentence below the excerpt.

Joe,

Is this the sentence you're talking about?

"Let's review: Problems distinguishing facts from propaganda. Too quick to pass judgment without adequate knowledge. Failure to properly assess sources who have an obvious axe to grind. Ignorance of regional history."

If so, I'm still not convinced its a good analysis. Drum is tyring to draw parallels between one reviewer's analysis of Rice's analysis (made 20 years ago) of a situation that doesn't bear any resemblance to modern terrorism. You just can't compare the two.

Plus, who is this reviewer? Are we to trust this single negative review? Are there other reviews out there? And if there are, don't you think that Drum could have at least referenced them as well so as to put this negative review he was quoting into context?

Rob:

I'm not saying I want to blow Kevin Drum; I'm just saying that the premise of the post -- Drum had a lame reaction to Rice's testimony -- is bogus.

Secondarily, I think the review is interesting, though not earth-shattering -- like Clinton's essay that Nixon should resign.

It's not the entirety of Drum's criticism of Bush, nor do I think he presented it as such.

"It's not the entirety of Drum's criticism of Bush, nor do I think he presented it as such."

We're not talking about Bush here, we're talking about Rice. Plus, this was Drum's first post after Rice's 9/11 testimony and it was clearly meant to discredit her. If Drum has better criticism's of Rice then why is he posting something as petty as this?

To me, that's a pretty lame reaction.

Oh, for Christ's sake ...

Kevin Drum posted that BEFORE Rice testified.

Paul made it sound like it was a response to Rice's testimony.

And apparently, Paul successfully misled some people ("Drum's first post after Rice's 9/11 testimony") -- exactly why I bothered to correct him.

There's no need to get upset Joe...

So Drum's post was shortly before Rice's testimony instead of shortly after. His intent was still to discredit Rice with facile analysis.