Some have a habit of calling much of what this Administration does as lying. I don't like to use the word, since its emotional weight leads people to be uncomfortable with it, treating it like perjury [intentional material lie needed]. At any rate, a lot of what this administration does surely isn't the "truth" either. The same applies to those who support it. This is one look at such a misleading defense. It took a bit of time to examine, suggesting the effort needed to be a consistent watchdog. Thus, my respect for those that are.

My attempt to read the other side was harmed again by a check over at Instapundit. [In my recent remarks on the Rice Testimony, I quoted from Daily Kos. This annoyed one person, who felt him a radical liberal sort that couldn't be trusted. I can understand this -- if someone quotes from this guy, I might be turned off too.] He uses the nitpick strategy of attacking the critics of Dr. Rice, et. al, rather well -- various serious criticisms of her testimony and managerial style are ignored to target arguable excesses of various critics. [See his 4/8 comments for general examples.]

His biases is suggested by choosing to quote an email from someone noting how Kerrey is totally biased and off the charts these days. His snarky tone is also shown by criticism he received on account of his over the top attacks on Air America and Sen. Kennedy's "Iraq is President Bush's Vietnam" speech. Glenn Reynolds, to use his real name, is of the sort from the other side that really trouble me -- those that come off as sarcastic assholes, who do not just provide a challenging alternate p.o.v., but poison the waters, helping to assure only the choir listens to them. Is this their desire?

Instapundit selectively quotes from the Spinsanity to prove no "war plan" against Al Qaeda was given by the transition team to the Bush Administration to help to show no one in either administration really was paying attention. This was truly amusing really. It is a good website that targets both sides, so it's a powerful source. The problem is that (chuckle) he quotes a special contributor to the site, a conservative commentator, who was there debating Al Franken. The utter wrongheaded nature of equating the two administrations is also suggested here.

Site editors responded to the comments by suggesting things are a TAD bit more complicated. It turns out that, yes, the Clinton Administration had plans against Al Qaeda, which the person quoted [Sandy Berger, Dr. Rice's predecessor] says was "number one" priority. Berger also noted: "We briefed them fully on what we were doing, on what else was under consideration and what the threat was." The fact no specific "war plan" was turned over, whatever that means exactly, is somewhat misleading without this context. I tried to email Instapundit about this, but he has an email addy that AOL did not accept.

Professor Reynolds is a sad example of the libertarian sort (see, e.g., his criticism of the administration's current anti-porn offensive) that is blinded by their foreign policy views (or perhaps some other issue). This swing group is attracted to selective blindness and reasons to dislike Kerry; the fact that Bush doesn't quite hold up to their standards is sadly put aside. Some are quite nice people that have a lot of good to say, but this aspect turns me off. The only hope is true debate, but their biases make it real hard at times.