First, a fundamental question must be asked: Since neither of these publications are blogs, but rather magazines with an online presence purportedly representing conservative thought, how could a writer refer to a competing periodical, say it contains "all the details" (presumptively making his own superfluous), and then provide a link from his employer's site to his competitor's?

Major publications often refer to other articles, but generally provide additional "details" or a much more cogent explanation of same. Questions should arise as to timing, coordination, and glaring ommission.

Note the dates appended to the two articles: Robbins' (June 2, 2003) and Kristol's (June 9, 2003). An explanation has been offered for the fact that the Robbins article (which refers to Kristol's) is dated seven days prior to Kristol's: In order to avoid turning a debate over a substantive issue (the war and what was said to make a case for war) into a debate over publishing dates, it is left to the reader to treat the dates as he or she would.

The following is an excerpt from the Kristol piece (by the way, Kristol also brought us the Project for the New American Century which, in turn, brought us the war in Iraq):

"Let's be clear: Though Paul Wolfowitz has friends and admirers at the Weekly Standard, we would be surprised and more than a little distressed had he actually said what he's supposed to have said in this instance... In short, Wolfowitz made the perfectly sensible observation that more than just WMD was of concern, but that among several serious reasons for war, WMD was the issue about which there was widest domestic (and international) agreement."

Those unfamiliar with the National Review can see many of its staffers on television as pundits and read their writings in numerous publications. The following is a brief listing of some of its more visible apologists for the war and excusers of a lack of WMD presence in Iraq:

• Rich Lowry (National Review Editor)
  
• David Frum (former speechwriter for President George W. Bush)
  
• Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online (Editor-at-Large)
  
• Kate O'Beirne (National Review) Washington Editor

All of the above parrot the Bush Administration's talking points continuously, making very minor criticisms of certain actions to cloak themselves in faux "objectivity" while appearing on various television shows and writing op-eds. Similarly, the Weekly Standard's line-up can be found alternatively in their publication, on television, in the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and as targets and/or potential targets of investigations.

To get a flavor for the breeding ground that fosters these "journalists" and "opinion writers," an interview given by a Weekly Standard senior writer, Matt Labash, is helpful. It provides some insight into the thinking that drives these currently influential policy makers:

JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like the Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?

Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point-of-view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually.