Replies

I think you are mixing up your mags. Be that as it may, The New Republic has more interesting stuff than any other publication on the net bar none, at least for those looking for some analytical depth. This piece is more polemical, but well written and oh, so juicy. It just keeps punching away.

"please explain their general stand on things."--- Isn't there some sheet you can get from the ones that send your "talking points" to you that explains various publications "stand on things"? If not, somebody will probably have to do that to increase effective defending and attacking of sources.

An admission in the open by a Bush Defender At Any Cost that they don't know these things will thwart your upward mobility in the organization. In the meantime, try clicking the links I've marked plainly, review the sites, and TRY to form your OWN opinion.

Buchanan's surefire flop. Home Bound
The New Republic | July 11, 2002 | Franklin Foer
^click here^

"Interesting article. Although I am dubious about anything from The National Review, this seems to be a fairly logical analysis.
4 posted on 7/13/02 3:40 PM Central by Miss Marple

Isn't The New Republic a liberal essay magazine? That was the reason I made that comment. If I am wrong, please explain their general stand on things. Thanks!
7 posted on 7/13/02 3:50 PM Central by Miss Marple

National Review Online --- Try clicking this one for a Different site

First, the Clinton administration justified its interventions as humanitarian necessities. In the war on terror, by contrast, Bush hasn't needed to appeal to altruism. He has employed the rhetoric of national interest--fulfilling the Buchananite criteria for intervention.

Take this one for example. The premise is that involvement in all "interventions" or "wars" are founded in the same events, and that one has to be a "Buchananite" to support a war against Osama et al. It's senseless drivel posing as knowledgable. Just another reason why left wing rags seem more irrelevant these days than right wing ones. They don't address facts, or detail what "rights" we are allegedly losing. They're not talking about anything except about themselves, and how they see themselves in the world.