Damn, here I had though that Bush invaded Iraq because Clinton got a blow job.
And apparently Osama attend a Islamic school and is running for president of the USA.
I’m so confused!
That’s like asking for a cite for the fact water is wet.
If by ‘tackled’ you mean ‘fanned the flames of through grotesque incompetence, bed-wetting stupidity and unconscionable arrogance’ that is.
Not even if she promised not to jizz on it?
Hey stop that. I was just getting my outrage going. I especially liked Jonah Goldberg’s line:
That was the first thing I thought, too.
Brass, yes. But not knuckles.
This is certainly a good thing, although these voices of reason will not stop talk radio and the Roves of the right from continuing the innuendo until the voices of reason are shouted down. Once lies are out there, most people ignore whatever comes after, as is still the case in America regarding the reasons we went into Iraq. The number of people who think Saddam is in someway responsible for 9/11 is staggering. The ability of Americans to swallow the most implausible nonsense is a constant source of amazement to me, but politicians of all stripes count on it.
Did Ms. Malkin ever find that AP consulting Iraqi cop whose existence she so wanted to disprove?
Yes, and the officer in question is now in danger of being arrested for talking to the press. Thanks Michele, keep up the good work.
Now this is interesting. You post a link to a story that debunks the madrassa issue, then promptly blame it on the right. How about showing some proof that the right originated it? After all, the story did originate from Hillary’s camp, although they are backpedaling furiously now. Are you trying to imply that Hillary is a right winger?
Now THAT would be a real insult to the right.
Cite please that Clinton’s camp originated the story. And no - the Moonie Press who broke the story does not count as a cite. Circular reasoning and all.
And just to be clear as it has just dawned on me who I’m asking for a cite. No - stories referencing the original story don’t count either.
No, the story originated in a right wing publication which provided no sources or evidence for its insinuation that Hillary was behind it. The burden of proof that HRC had anything to do with it lies with Insight, not with anyone else to disprove it.
Hillary isn’t “back-pedalling,” by the way, she’s flat out denying any involvement. There’s a difference.
Also, the conservative cloumnists cited above each express their skepticism that the Clinton campaign had anything to do with it. Once again, for those who missed it above, Jonah Goldberg said:
And each of teh other three express the same sentiments.
So, is this a Conservative media conspiracy?
Like clockwork.
Don’t they?
Dunno about GW, but his daughters went to UTex, which is a hotbed of Methodist fanatics.
Excuse me, but the claim made by the author of this thread was that “right wing fucktards” were responsible for the story. It seems to me that’s the claim that requires a cite.
Now, you may claim that the cite is simply that the Washington Times organization published the story. But their claim is that they were fed the story from Mrs. Clinton’s camp. You reject that claim, but won’t permit anyone to rely on their testimony.
On the other hand, you may just be arguing that the weight of the evidence is that Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is not the source – if it were, I’ve seen argued above, why would they choose a Washington Times-owned source to reveal it?
Possibly for precisely this reason: deniability.
In my view, we cannot make any judgment about who it may have come from without some kind of evidence.
We can, however, note that the publication rushed to print this story without verifying it at all, and a relatively simple verification proves it is false. This suggests both bias and poor journalism on the part of the publication.
So – if the OP meant, by “right wing fucktards,” to refer simply to the editors involved with this publication decision…
… I agree.
Of course not! Religion, bigotry, womens’ rights, torture, intolerance…they all get a pass around here if outside the U.S. :rolleyes:
Or perhaps some of our resident leftwing fucktards can point to efforts by the left to battle these problems anywhere else around the globe that is in any way even vaguely comparable to the vehemence they bring to bear when these conditions can be tied to the U.S. Or are human rights not universal? They certainly wouldn’t seem to be universal enough around here to qualify for, you know, action or anything.
Oh, I know! We might be seen as imposing our will…or something.
Yes, far better to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses of the kind rarely, if ever, seen in this country than to ‘interfere’ with another culture, for as we all know, ‘other cultures’ are far more important than mere human beings.
And besides, we’d have to take a stand…or something.
WTF? Starving Artist, I thought you’d agreed to preface all your bullshit, unsubstantiated, uncited posts with an IMO.