I usually find Patrick McIlheran too syrupy to read. I just feel really sticky when I’ve finished one of his pieces and am left trying to figure out what he was trying to say while having to clean up.
I just feel used by him. Just a gut feeling that maybe, just maybe, I’ve not been told everything. Often, it’s because of the sources he uses to lend authenticity to his arguments, like WorldNetDaily, and the Heritage Foundation. Nothing unbiased from those two.
The same occurred today while reading his blog piece about civil liberties. Somehow, anything the Bush Administration has done or is alleged to have done regarding the total disdain for our liberties, he claims, is wiped away by the weird case of a former nuclear weapons scientist accused of spying. The government is paying him a truckload of cash because it has been determined that his civil liberties were violated.
The key here that makes all the Bush no-nos go away is this nuclear scientist was accused during the Clinton years (at the tail end of his term).
Those naughty Clintons.
Anyway, Jay Bullock puts McIlheran in his place, once again, and reveals that Paddy-Mac is bending the truth ever so slightly. Did I say bending? I meant dodging.
Beware linking the words "Scott Walker" and "principle" - And, of course, Walker's announcement of an overdue budget deal "in principle" was shot down by legislators with whom he'd struck that deal. So what is it ...
31 minutes ago