Where Was George?

[Buffalo Tom]

The arguments in this editorial have been floating around the 'Net, and have turned up in some news broadcasts.

Where was George on 9/11/01? (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=alterman)

[VinceZeb]

The Nation... credible source.

At least he biased news sources I go to have credibility.

[Zhukov]

The websites you get your sources from have some of the best credibility in the field, even the internet. They have spent all their lives on politics and also on the front lines, they also are on many different news programs and channels.

[mburbank]

Actually, the Nation has a long and excellent record as far as sources and reporting go. If you want to question their analysis, that is of course your prerogative, but just becuase you don't like them doesn't mean their journalism isn't widely respected.

I challenge you to find a single source questioning the reliability of their reporting.

As far as the question of what W did when on 9/11, all you need to do is tke any one of the several different timellines given by Bush administration employees including the Pres. himself) and put them next to each other.

The fact that it was a confusing, frightening, crazy day is totally understandable. The equally evident fact that the administration wants to paint a much different picture of what that day was like is not. Theirs nothing wrong with what he did that day. There' lot wrong with his pathalogical need to lie about it since.

[VinceZeb]

You confuse "respected" with "credible".

Michael Moore is respected, but not credible.

P.M. Hale is respected, but not credible.

There is a difference.

[mburbank]

Not in this case. You're obviously not to busy to find a source critical of the Nations reliability on facts. Are you too stupid, or too lazy?