The author states the following further down in the article ...
1. “I have reviewed the evidence and have not been convinced that the government was behind the attacks.”
2. “I have reviewed the evidence and am convinced that the government was behind the attacks.”
3. “I have not reviewed the evidence and, therefore, do not have an opinion on the subject.”
4. “I don’t care what the evidence is because it is inconceivable that the U.S. government would ever commit such a dastardly act, and anyone who doesn’t immediately denounce such a possibility is an unpatriotic whacko who hates America.”
From the interview with Medina it’s obvious which category Beck falls into: Number 4, the same category that Krauthammer falls into.”
He is missing an important fifth category ...
“Though I did not take the claims of “truthers” seriously from the outset, I have surveyed the ‘evidence’ enough to recognize its absurdity, and determined that it is inconcievable that the U.S. government committed THIS dastardly act. Thus, anyone that does not immediately denounce such a possilbility is entertaining anti-American propaganda, and giving aid and comfort to the real perpetrators of this act of war.”
I’d guess that Beck and Krauthammer, like me and most reasonable American patriots, actually fall into the 5th category ... not the 4th.
SnakeDoc
Well said.