Is John Tierney Only Stupid, or Also a Liar?

I continue to have a hard time deciding whether John Tierney is merely sloppy and inaccurate, or intentionally deceptive.

His Op-Ed  in today's Times, entitled "Not in the Kennedy's Backyard" is typical.

The piece proposes that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and Senator Ted Kennedy are opposed to the building of a wind farm on Nantucket Sound because they hypocritically don't want the views from their home in Hyannisport spoiled.

Tierney first goes after Bobby Jr, refers to an Op-Ed  he wrote, and distorts it. He writes that  Bobby Jr, "warned in an Op-Ed  article that the wind farm "would damage the views from 16 historic sites."  Tierney then states that the damage would be very minimal.  Perhaps he's right about this. It's definitely not right to imply that this is Bobby's only argument, who in fact made several more.

Next he attacks Teddy.  Here he runs into some difficulty because he has absolutely no evidence. That has never slowed Tierney down. (remember Chile's wonderful pension plan?) Although Teddy has denied being part of a maneuver to stop the project in Congress, Tierney knows that he really is a part of it. How? Because "a committee source tells [him] that the Massachusetts delegation lobbied" for it.  What delegation does Tierney think would be interested in a project off Nantucket?  Idaho's?

Then it's back to Bobby: "To be fair, there are good arguments against the wind farm." But he isn't fair in his description of what those arguments are. Instead he distorts Bobby's comments about the cost of wind-power, and then generalizes from wind-power to all forms of renewable energy.

When Michelle Malkin's husband is not available to write her blog, Tierney could certainly stand in.  He, too, intentionally distorts and deceives his readers.

Comments

[ThatGayConservative]

Could that possibly be the same source quoted here?

http://www.capecodonline.com/special/windfarm/warnerrelented9.htm

[bbbustard]

And your point is ??? Seriously, I don't get what you're trying to say here.

[ThatGayConservative]

Why am I not surprised.

[bbbustard]

Why you like to be cryptic surprises me. But I forget your dislike of facts.
Are you saying that Tierney's source, who identified the Massachussets delegation (Not Kennedy, delegation.) is the same as the source who identified Warner and Kennedy as being "expected to make other attempts to stop development?"
Seriously, I don't get it. If I do understand you, you make no sense.If I don't - help me out.