Another thing I don't understand: I admire the Republicans' high standard

[jobycom]

for proof when it comes to the media and documents, but I can't understand why their standards for proof weren't so rigid when it came to WMDs in Iraq. Or evidence of 9-11 links to Iraq, or al-Queda to Iraq. Or evidence against prisoners of war?

Is it that war and people's rights should have much lower standards of proof than news stories?

See how much smarter Republicans are? To me, these look like self-defensive double standards, meant to undermine any evidence critical of the Republicans while allowing the Republicans to do anything at all they want without having to justify anything. But to the superior Republican mind, it makes sense.

I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy.

[Canuckistanian]

1. Standards? They don't need no stinkin' standards

They will use anything that agrees with their worldview and call it fair, accurate and unbiased.
Anything that's AGAINST them is conspiracy, "Librul Media" and completely unsubstantiated.