I was expecting some kind of "OMG you read the weekly standard your a fucking loser fuck you" type of close-minded reaction of the likes you gentlemen posted. As much as I may have issues with the Weekly Standard myself (along with any other publication that takes whatever side a priori), I defend my use of the excerpt I extracted from it.

I was not quoting a Weekly Standard opinion piece. I was quoting Stephen Hayes, who in turn was quoting the 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 15, which in turn was quoting Farouk al-Hijazi, who in turn was quoting... well, no one, actually, the buck stops there. There's quite a difference, I would say.

So I think it's irrational for you guys to attack the Weekly Standard when all it was doing was quoting a detained Iraqi agent. If you have - and from your ostentatious prejudice, it seems as if you do - an absolutist "Everything printed on the Weekly Standard is bullshit" attitude, if the WS ever quoted Michael Moore in one of its articles as saying that this war was illegal and pointless, then by your own logic, you'd have to say you don't believe or agree with that either, because hey, everything printed in the WS is bullshit, right? Even when it's just quoting others, these others are wrong by proxy.

Even the date printed on the cover of the publication is probably incorrect, I guess. Now that I think of it, I do believe this week's issue is dated October 18, 1992. Fucking lying neo-cons, they all are.

For the record, I am neither a neo-con, nor a "right-wing spin doctor," rather a libertarian-minded independent who believes that lately, too many Americans seem gullible enough to buy into the misinformation created and disseminated by a Democratic Party that will do anything to get in power.