Any network who employs these two propagandists have given up their right to any benefit of the doubt.

Also, the conservative movement has fought a war against the "MSM" since the early 70s (Read David Brock's Right Wing Noise Machine for an example of the details) and has impugned their credibility from the right side of the aisle on a consistent basis. In turn, the corporate people have believed the right in that they believe that their outlets are "liberal," and that therefore the "left" should therefore give them the benefit of the doubt. This is a false paradigm which the left side of the "blogosphere" is laying to waste, through posts such as this one.

In general though, any thinking person should not believe just one source in regard to any news story as witness accounts are always flawed to a certain degree. A critical thinker takes all sources into account and attempts to discern what is truth and what is not. Personal experience also plays a role in this. In the new information age, empowered by the internets we luckily have access to more than one source. The corporate media can be luddites about this and not adopt or they can acknowledge that they, like everyone, are flawed and that witness accounts of the same event can differ. Certainly the anonymous "trusted" source will not stand the test of time.

In Mansfield's editorial I would like to emphasize the following: "Today Republicans and Democrats repeat these arguments when the former declare that we are at war with terrorists and the latter respond that the danger is essentially a matter of law enforcement"

Name me one major Democratic pol who has ever contended that we treat the "war with terrorists" (at least he doesn't say War on Terra) as a matter of law enforcement. This was an approved GOP talking point all throughout the second Bush campaign (which, in all honesty has never really ended since that is the only way they know how to govern)

Glenn has done a great job fleshing out the rest of his arguments in both the Weekly Standard article as well as this editorial, but I have to say that his statement that Mansfield is intellectually honest is a little bit of a stretch, as witnessed above.

As an aside, I find it very interesting that a flurry of articles and statements are coming out around now (of note, for example, is the Sowell piece) about the unitary executive. I suspect we will see another Friday news story or document dump in regard to either the NSA issue or Guantanemo Bay.......

(this initially ended up in the wrong thread for whatever reason.....)

In Mansfield's editorial I would like to emphasize the following: "Today Republicans and Democrats repeat these arguments when the former declare that we are at war with terrorists and the latter respond that the danger is essentially a matter of law enforcement"

Name me one major Democratic pol who has ever contended that we treat the "war with terrorists" (at least he doesn't say War on Terra) as a matter of law enforcement. This was an approved GOP talking point all throughout the second Bush campaign (which, in all honesty has never really ended since that is the only way they know how to govern)

Glenn has done a great job fleshing out the rest of his arguments in both the Weekly Standard article as well as this editorial, but I have to say that his statement that Mansfield is intellectually honest is a little bit of a stretch, as witnessed above.

As an aside, I find it very interesting that a flurry of articles and statements are coming out around now (of note, for example, is the Sowell piece) about the unitary executive. I suspect we will see another Friday news story or document dump in regard to either the NSA issue or Guantanemo Bay.......

but being a frequent commenter of the old site and not so much of the new one, and not knowing whether Lisa S is a troll or not, I would like to say that Lisa does the same thing that Mr. Mansfield does in both cited articles - cropping a quote just to make it suit their premise. [To be clear, in Mr. Mansfield's case it is the Oath of Office and Article II of the Constitution]

While one of Kerry's flaws was that he certainly didn't always get to the point right away, anyone who actually saw that debate knew what he was saying (just like, in another example, when he got branded with the so called "global test" gaffe).

"Treating the War on Terror as a Law Enforcement Issue" came straight out of Rove's shop. People that ignore that fact are being intellectually dishonest as well.

Also, if I'm not mistaken that ol' liberal Supreme Court justice Scalia knocked the Article II argument completely out of the park in either Hamdan or Hamdi. I guess he's also a supporter of the "rule of law".....