Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Reporting facts that you don't like doesn't make someone a partisan hit man. (See, e.g., Judith Miller.) Suskind has been around for a while. Writing a book with the GOP Secretary of Treasury doesn't make him a partisan Democrat, even if O'Neill had things to say that don't reflect favorably on Bush.
|
Not directly on point to your post, but . . . .
Here's an example of how Suskind's conclusions can be directly opposite conclusions reached with the same info by others, even within the same source:
--------------------
. Ron Suskind, who created a bit of a stir sometime back with his book airing erstwhile Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill's grievances against the president, says the administration is too rigid:
"The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision--often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position--he expects complete faith in its rightness. "
Then the Times' David Sanger, writing in the Week in Review section, says the administration is too fractious:
"Mr. Bush, more than most recent presidents, has tolerated--even encouraged--a constant battle in his administration over how to shape its approach to the world."
