Huh. You mean to say that Jayson Blair was not an isolated incident of the New York Times behaving in the thoroughly fact-free and libelous manner that bloggers are often accused of?
A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a "white nationalist" Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul's presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly "with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others" at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul's office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.In other words, the New York Times was a party to libel against Ron Paul. If I were a member of the Ron Paul campaign staff right now, I would urge him to strongly consider a lawsuit against the New York Times that could be settled on the condition that the New York Times print a prominent front-page correction, admitting every detail of their mistake.
You've got a strong point about the NYT: facts haven't been their strong suit for quite a while. However, on the Rep. Paul front, it's interesting to compare his response to the Bhutto assassination to that of the other candidates (available on CNN). I don't think that Paul's response does him any favors, and he certainly clinched the deal for me (that I'll be voting for someone else).
I'll have to watch the video, but from what I just read on Vox's blog, it sounds pretty on target to me. Not necessarily saying that he phrased it right, but according to Mark Steyn, it was the State Department that sent her over there, knowing full well that she would probably be a lightning rod for extremists. Thus, they are at least partially culpable for leading her to her death.
Yeah, Ron Paul thinks we ought to mind our own business instead of poking at all the world's hornet nests. What a nut. *rolls eyes*
I guess it is just too bad that the 'hornet netsts' keep attacking us. I bet if we just ignored the rest of the world, everything would be all right, but that would require stoping all travel and tade out side of the US, and that does not sound like a good idea.
Come on, I've got my reservations on Ron Paul, but I've never once heard him suggest that we ignore the rest of the world, let alone stoping travel and trades outside the U.S. The idea of pulling out of Iraq and not playing police to the rest of the world is concerning to me, but if you listen closely to Ron Pauls position, it does make sense.
How would those hornet nests keep attacking us if the U.S. military were stationed only on American soil and embassies? How would they get here unless the United States, Mexico or Canada gave them access to North America? North America is a hard place for these countries to get to without us inviting them here. I have no sympathy for my own country if out of political correctness we won't control our borders and visa applications, thus allowing terrorists to easily arrive on our soil. We are surrounded by two very large oceans, and two large countries, both of whom we have decent diplomatic relationships with, and could easily overrun if they allowed themselves to become staging ground for Islamic terrorists.
We didn't stop trade and travel in the past when we had non-interventionist policies, why would it stop now? The world was actually far more dangerous, all things considered, for American traders in 1807 than 2007.
Nobody wants to stop travel and trade, least of all Ron Paul. Most of the countries on this planet manage to do these things without messing around in their neighbours' domestic policies. There's no reason we can't follow suit.
And security starts at the border. Until it is secure, this War on Terror is a sham, and any incursion into some Middle East hellhole has nothing to do with actual national defense.