News about Shit I made Up
Because facts is too hard when we’re busy licking Bush’s heiny-hole, sayeth the Retarded Rightists.
I don’t have a clue who Sweetness & Light is, but Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds are hawking it, so that makes a strong case for it being a mass hallucination brought on by delirium tremors after they jointly kicked the reality habit. A habit they stole from a fallen nun.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Well, he’s got a clear timeline with links to all his evidence, but you’ve got phrases like “licking Bush’s heiny-hole” and “retarded Rightists.” So I guess you win.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Evidence? Lots of links, but evidence? Evidence is supposed to be that which provides good reason to believe the contention, which in this case is that Joe Wilson outed his wife. And sorry, on that account, no sale. Instead of evidence we get a list of dates, a string of illogic, and a pile of supposition.
For one example: It is on its face ridiculous to claim, as the post does, that there is a contradiction between concluding the Niger uranium story was bogus on the one hand and believing Saddam had WMDs on the other. That’s like saying the jury in the Libby trial contradicted itself by acquitting him on one charge while convicting him on others. It’s undeniably true that you can be innocent of one charge while still being guilty of others. That simple fact undermines a main line of the “argument.”
It’s equally ridiculous to argue, as the post does, that supporting John Kerry meant that anything and everything Wilson did was for partisan political purposes. That’s just the right-wingers projecting their own practices onto everyone else, not evidence.
We also see a repetition of the fatuous claim that the infamous “16 words” were “grounded in fact” - ignoring the inconvenient truth that almost immediately after Wilson’s op-ed appeared, the White House admitted they should not have been in the speech, it turned out the the CIA had gotten them removed from an earlier speech, and Condeleeza Rice, when asked about why the reference was in the SOTU, said she had no explanation beyond aides having “forgotten” about the CIA’s objections.
And when we finally get to the money quote, instead of actual evidence, an actual linkage, any actual facts, we get the bland assertion “it seems quite obvious” that Wilson himself had told a whole lot of people about his wife. A bland assertion that later becomes “But according to Mr. Armitage … Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had already been revealed to reporters by her husband….” Richard Armitaqe said no such thing. He said that “everyone knows” about Plame (”everyone” apparently not including Bob Woodward) but said nothing about how he or anyone else came by such information. The claim to the contrary, so direct that it can’t be a mistake, is a lie.
I have one question: If Wilson was telling all of these people about Plame, why is it that in the midst of all the “I heard it from Libby” and “I heard it from Armitage” and “I heard it from Tim Russert” and all the rest, there seems not to be one single person to say “I heard it from Joe Wilson?”
March 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
So I guess you win.
Oh? It’s a contest? National security reduced to neener-neenerism.
Wilde chose to skip point by point refutal of invisible evidence, not to win anything, but to emphasize what has been lost.
The country has lost 3200+ soldiers and its moral standing in the world. Iraq has lost hundreds of thousands of lives, millions of citizens, order, and infrastructure. And pundits compelled to attack every messenger have lost their minds, their clothes and capacity for embarrassment.