David Brock, who wrote the Troopergate story for the Scaife magazine “American Spectator”, now admitted even by the Arkansas state trooper who provided the basis for it to have been a fabrication, now admits that his efforts in the Clarence Thomas hearings were part of a coordinated effort to smear Anita Hill and hide Thomas’ own past. His book “Blinded by the Right: Conscience of an Ex-Conservative” will be out in September, and I’ve no doubt that the Free Republic types are busily trying to discredit him already.
Today’s New York Times (click fast before it goes into Pay Per View, and did you really expect the Washington Times to report this, anyway?) has more, including this from the normally exuberant Clinton-basher Maureen Dowd:
So there’s no Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy? Pity Brock didn’t listen to the late Lee Atwater’s deathbed repentance of his activities and save himself some wasted years. There’s still time for others to do the same.
Apologies in advance for any Preview problems. I’ll put the links in clear text if this doesn’t work.
OK, I thought so, but don’t know why:
Today’s New York Times (click fast before it goes into Pay Per View, and did you really expect the Washington Times to report this, anyway?)
has more, including this
from the normally exuberant Clinton-basher Maureen Dowd
Etc. Sorry.
Oh, there has to be a debate topic in GD, right.
How about this: “Resolved: There was/is a ‘Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ willing to tell any lie necessary to discredit nonconservatives, and there are those still fooled by it today.”
I don’t know if I’d agree that it’s a well-organized Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, but I will concede that I am (a) disgusted and (b) not surprised by this revelation.
Okay, so there are some Republicans who will do all sorts of secret, dirty tricks to bring down the Democrats.
But does this really qualify as a “Vast Conspiracy”? I put this more on par with the Institute for Creation Science, which tries to sneak Biblical creationism into schools under the guise of science. Yeah, it’s pretty scummy, but it ain’t exactly the Illuminati.
I guess we **KNOW ** that he is telling the truth now.
Let’s see…
The guy comes out with a bunch of stuff you disagree with…
There is no reason to doubt his integrity…
You don’t believe him…
The guy comes out and admits that he is a liar…
You like what he is saying this time…
So now you believe him…
Call me crazy, but nothing this guy has said, is currently saying, or will EVER say, carries even the slightest hint of credibility.
Fair enough, Freedom. But the question then becomes: Given that nothing Brock says or has said can be believed at face value, which statements that he has made have more independent verifiability, and better match the pattern of behavior of the participants he’s referring to?
Yes, it is possible to determine the truth, albeit from other sources. Given that his Troopergate source has since recanted and apologized, the conclusion as regards that story is pretty much inescapable (as is the following conclusion that those who believed it were duped). Given even the minimal statements in the excerpts from Brock’s book that have been released so far from other sources, the same conclusion is also in sight.
His statements about the “Big Lie Machine” also bear consideration, based on the behavior of the right-wing commentariat in the 90’s - but that has been discussed to death even without his latest contribution. We’re at the lead-a-horse-to-water stage on that, and have been there for years.
Now, at what point exactly did you stop believing Brock? When he stopped telling you things you wanted to hear?
Brock et al. need not have been intentionally lying.
Remember ol’ Rush Limbaugh? He would frequently repeat any story he heard that sounded “good,” no matter how questionable its source. A chapter in Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot is titled, “The Man With the Easiest Job in the World: Rush Limbaugh’s Fact-Checker.”
Sure, he was pulling the wool over his own eyes by being so unbelievably credulous of any story that sounded even remotely anti-Democrat, but that doesn’t mean he was lying. Brock et al. might have been in the same boat with Limbaugh in that regard.
A distinction without a difference, tracer.
I understand that the legal definition of libel includes “reckless disregard for the truth”, for instance. If that isn’t exactly “lying” in the strictest dictionary sense, so what? The intent is the same: to defame another person.
Morally, I don’t see a difference between saying something you know to be untrue, and saying it without caring if it’s true. Or, for that matter, for a listener or reader choosing to believe such statements without skepticism, while choosing to ignore the absence of facts to support it and the presence of facts to refute it.
To be honest, I’m not sure I ever listened to Brock. He might have been one of a bunch of voices I was hearing, but I don’t specifically remember ever looking for something from him the way I do from some other authors.
I consider this guy in the same league as the Jefferson historian who was claiming he was in combat during the Vietnam war. Once one of these guys comes out and admits to outright deliberate lies, then all of their work is garbage to me.
I can understand mistakes and changes in political positions, but not the creation of facts.
