My point is that some people are so intellectually lazy that they dismiss an entire argument based solely on the perceived political leanings of the author.
It's like how the news will say "such and such study by the left-leaning/right-leaning think tank.." so that if you agree with that side, you can support it and if you don't agree, you can automatically dismiss it without any consideration. That way no one has to think or consider any possible alternative viewpoint.
And before this comes up, it is a completely separate issue from 'media bias' where a story laced with biased language and framing tries to pass itself off as a factual account. This is clearly an opinion and a setting forth of certain ideas. It's just that some people are too lazy to consider those ideas and it's much easier to simply blow off the author as being from 'the other side'.
The argument in the article was dismissed because it was predicated on an inaccurate comparison of WWII and the current war on terror, not because of where it was posted on the internet. I read the article in its entirety and dismissed it without giving a second thought to who the author might be. BTW I find it ironic that you are so eager to accuse others of intellectual laziness when you turn to Slate for information to support your anti-Bush stance.
You have no idea where I turn to for information on anything. I just happened to find this particular article interesting and thought I'd put it out there to get opinions. I fail to see how your knowing that I have at least once read Slate gives you any sort of profound insight into where I get my news and information.
Your only comment before this appears to be in regards to the source of the article, not the content of the article. If you have a problem with what's said, why not criticize that instead of the source?
And please go back and read the thread title again. The key word is "difference".
In reverse order...
In order for the "difference" to which the article refers to be meaningful, one must assume that WWII and WoT must be largely similar in context.
I didn't criticize the article becuae that would have been repetitive. The article's major flaws had already been pointed out. I didn't crticize Slate either. In fact I enjoy Slate. I simply pointed out that link beacause there were some questions as to the orginal source. I simply looked it up.
Lastly, you got caught with your pants down by trying to pass off anti-Bush rhetoric as some sort of meaningful argument. You were bold enough to accuse others of intelectual laziness when in fact that was what you were practicing.