|
16 Jun 04 - 10:00 AM (#1208542) Subject: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Amos Paul Krugman, writing for the New York Times on June 15, offers this resounding condemnation of John Ashcroft: "No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history " A |
|
16 Jun 04 - 12:01 PM (#1208660) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: GUEST,Hugh Jampton Apparently his diatribe was in response to Ashcroft`s criticism of Krugman when he described him as a "lightweight scribbler who couldn`t spell". |
|
16 Jun 04 - 12:16 PM (#1208675) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Amos I would suggest you confine yourself to speaking to the facts, sir. The facts listed in the linked article are quite sufficient to support Krugman's characterization of Ashcroft. A |
|
16 Jun 04 - 09:03 PM (#1209006) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Alaska Mike John Ashcroft is so inept, his own state decided to elect a dead guy to the Senate rather than see Ashcroft get the job. They all thought they had seen the last of the slimy SOB, then he gets appointed to the top cop job and starts whitling away at all of our constitutional rights. What a bozo. One more significant reason to trim the Shrubery from the White House in November. |
|
17 Jun 04 - 01:38 PM (#1209277) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: DougR At least they are in Amos' opinion. Everbody has a right to their own of course. DougR |
|
17 Jun 04 - 02:13 PM (#1209324) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Nerd Uh, I can't find any evidence that Ashcroft ever said anything like that about Paul Krugman. Care to give some, Hugh Jampton? Krugman, by the way, is a Princeton professor of Economics. To describe him as "a lightweight scribbler" would merely show the accuser's ignorance. |
|
17 Jun 04 - 09:24 PM (#1209575) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Amos A fesity discussion ensued on the list this first came from, of which this is the latest: Yesterday, Michelle Malkin argues that Paul Krugman is entitled to his own opinion about Ashcroft, but not to his own set of facts about terrorist prosecutions. To make her point, she excerpts part of an earlier Krugman column (May 11, 2004)) in which he again complains that Ashcroft has not convicted any actual terrorists. Of course, she left out of her excerpt his next sentence which read, "(Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick of Slate calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll see what I mean.)." Since he was not unaware of these prosecutions, Krugman was expressing an opinion about what constituted 'actual' terrorists. The list of convicted terrorists that Malkin offers to rebuke Krugman, if one takes the time to try to even remember who they were, actually makes Krugman's point, that these were 'disaffected bozos,' not actual, competent terrorists. No doubt they represented a problem that needed cleaning up, but not something which merits boasting about. One might disagree with Krugman's assessment of the importance of these cases, but that is his opinion which Malkin asserts he is entitled to. Yet, instead of taking on Krugman's opinion, Malkin tries to subvert it by pretending he was simply ignorant of facts. This is contumelious and typical of what David Brock documents in "The Republican Noise Machine: Right Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy." |
|
17 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM (#1209629) Subject: RE: BS: NYTimes Slams Ashcroft From: Bobert Inept? probably not. Facist? UnAmerican? Well, yeah. But, hey, if you look around the Bush administration there are no shortage of these folks... Bobert |