Astonishing

I understand people see things differently, but I just read a Timothy Noah piece in Slate that shocked me in its bizarro claims.

The article in general is your basic formula: flawed assumptions about Bush + faulty logic = unfair conclusions about Bush (which, let's face it, is a lot easier than actual debate).

But then I ran across this: Bush 43 is talking to Bush 41, and wants to know who these "neocons" are. Now I realize "neocon" no longer means anything (Noah hasn't gotten the memo yet), but this in itself is interesting. If it's true, I guess the neocon influence wasn't as great as so many anti-war types claimed (not that we didn't already know this), but for some reason Noah uses this story to attack Bush.

Next, Bush 43 describes the neocons thus: "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel." This is an odious and absurd slander, and I was waiting for Noah to start whaling on Bush 43. Instead, Noah states this claim is accurate.

Then, to complete the hat trick, Noah believes the story is reliable. Why? Because it comes from "good reporter" Alexander Cockburn.