Don’t confuse me with facts…I got a book to sell here.

Rich Lowry, who is slightly less butch than Ann Coulter, takes a page from her book: make a stupid unsupportable assertion, get called on it, and then try and change the subject. Matthew Yglesias calls him on it, exposes him, and, oh hell, makes Lowry his bitch.

The question I sought to raise, however, was not whether America’s pre-9-11 counterterrorism policy looks flawed in retrospect — it obviously was — but whether the editors of the National Review were urging that the Clinton administration do anything substantially different at the time. A search through the magazine’s archives rather clearly reveals that they did not. Indeed, the fact that their self-described “main statement of editorial policy on the [Cole] matter” consists of a single paragraph — the 11th — of an 18-paragraph summary of the week’s events shows that writing about terrorism was not exactly the magazine’s priority back in 2000.

Mention of the Cole bombing was buried beneath such items as a defense of racial profiling, a condemnation of Dick Cheney’s relatively moderate views on homosexuality, a lament on the weakness of Rick Lazio’s New York Senate campaign and a plug for a pro-voucher ballot proposition in California. All of which, one can assume, the National Review thought to be of greater importance than the terrorist attack.

(Thanks to Dave)

TBogg

TBogg

Yeah. Like I would tell you....