John Hinderocker fisks Nick Coleman:
I expect the lefty boilerplate from Coleman, but I used to think he cared about facts, truth and other pesky parts of (columnist or not) journalistic integrity. It's clear Coleman is lazy, sloppy or both. Preach to the choir, Nick, but someday they might be singing a different tune, and then where will you be?
Coleman quarrels, apparently, with the idea that "the terrorists of 9/11," al Qaeda, are the enemy in Iraq. But why? Hasn't he heard of Zarqawi? Is he unaware of "al Qaeda in Iraq"? The fact that we are killing al Qaeda members and supporters in Iraq is inconvenient for liberal opponents of the war; but how, exactly, does Coleman propose to deny it? Coleman continues:But more curious than the dubious assertions is the agenda of this big-bucks ad campaign: Who is paying for this pro-war propaganda? News reports identified the sponsor as "the conservative Progress for America Voter Fund," but that barely scratches the surface. Progress for America is a campaign front for President Bush, meaning we have reached the point when the money men for a president who no longer faces election keep spending on spin to try to shore up support for a mistaken elective war.
Note the quick transition from debating the message to smearing the messenger. In fact, Progress For America is a conservative issue advocacy organization, just as MoveOn.org, ACT, etc., are liberal issue advocacy organizations. (Except, of course, the liberals have more money.) Coleman derides PFA as "money men." But how, exactly, does he expect three servicemen to get their message out? Does he think they can afford to buy ads on television? Does he think that liberals will underwrite their message? Does he think his own newspaper will print it?
Read it all. It's an excellent primer in disingenuousness.