Jane Galt comments on last weeks predictions of a Karl Rove indictment and the disgraced former reporter who spread them.
The lefty blogosphere was all over this story like Michael Jackson at a Gymboree, despite the fact that anyone with a lick of common sense could see right through it. So intently would they like to see Mr. Rove “frog marched” out of the White House gates that they’d latch on to anything that promises them such a spectacle. It doesn’t matter that Leopold was quite clearly full of it, and that the source – Truthout had all the journalistic integrity of The Weekly World News, anything that justifies yet another round of anti-Bush onanism is taken as gospel by some.
Meanwhile, Howard Kurtz finds the best line of the whole affair:
Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer, says he spent most of the day on May 12 taking his cat to the veterinarian and having a technician fix his computer at home.
He was stunned, therefore, when journalists started calling to ask about an online report that he had spent half the day at his law office, negotiating with Patrick Fitzgerald — and that the special prosecutor had secretly obtained an indictment of Rove.
The cat’s medical tests, Luskin says, found that “the stools were free of harmful parasites, which is more than I can say for this case.”
I’d imagine that the cat’s ass probably smelled better than this story too.
As P.T. Barnum was quoted as saying — there’s a sucker born every minute. Given that, it looks like lefty blogs won’t have to worry about running out of readership…
This post might come back to take a chomp out of your behind…thanks for the fodder.
Unless Patrick Fitzgerald invents a time machine, travels back to last week and then indicts Rove, I rather doubt it.
Rove may be indicted, but the “Truthout” (*snicker*) story was pure BS, and Leopold was either a patsy or a liar, and my money is on the latter.
The Weekly World News is funny and harmless. Truthout is pathetic. I see no need to gratuitously insult the tabloid.
If your objection was the process by which a story entered the blogosphere and then some media outlets, allow me to introduce you to your old friend Jeff Gannon.
Except as far as I know, nothing Gannon wrote about was false – and if ideological bias makes one a charlatan, then the entire White House Press Corps should be thrown out on the streets – starting with Helen Thomas.
Of course, that’s just responding to one tu quoque with another…
Allow me to educate you. Let me know if you’d like some further reading.
What did they learn from Quantico? The letter that was received indicated that the NARA had no records of him – but that is not at all uncommon. It’s quite possible Gannon was lying about being a Marine – but it’s also quite possible that NARA simply didn’t have his records on file.
So you would like to see some more of Gannon’s (Guckert’s) lies.
Defending Gannon/Guckert is a new low for the conservative movement. Congratulations.
You accused Mr. Gannon/Guckert (or whatever) of faking his military history. He may well have done that, but you’ve yet to offer any proof.
Which is all besides the point, the fact that he was a liar doesn’t in any way diminish Leopold’s lies – evidently you’re unfamiliar with the concept of a tu quoque argument.
I’ve actually offered several lies Gannon/Guckert has made (I’ll put this site up again because you seem to have missed it). You’ve defended Gannon/Guckert. My point is that you’ll defend someone who lies for your side but profess profound moral indignation when someone allegedly does it for the other side.
Let’s talk about tu quoque. Apparently you might want to look that over because there are two parts of a tu quoque argument: 1.) accusing another of the same wrong and 2.) using that to defend the wrong at question. I’ve accused your side of the same wrong but have yet to use that to defend the wrong at question. To the contrary, I’m willing to submit that lies are generally wrong. You are willing to say that when Democrats lie it’s wrong. What I have done, therefore, is called pointing out hypocrisy.
Now, if you want, we can enter into a treatise on tu quoque, its historical role in logic and how it fits in with ad hominem fallacies (I would rather you leave the high and mighty attitude out, though).
Or, we can just agree that there are people willing to lie on both sides and it’s wrong when either side does it. That, of course, would mean you’d have admit what Gannon/Guckert did was wrong, and you conservatives seem to have a hard time admitting wrong when your side does it.
No, I’ve said that what you presented doesn’t prove that he lied about his military record. If that’s a defense, that’s hardly a rousing one. For the record, I’ve already called him a shill – hardly an act of apologia.
No, that’s not what a tu quoque is – one needn’t at all defend a wrong to make a tu quoque argument, just bring up an irrelevant accusation against the person making the initial argument. As the Fallacy Files explains:
Except I haven’t defended Gannon/Guckert at all. I’ve merely asked for proof of a charge. Gannon is most certainly guilty of being an individual of poor character and a shill – but the same description could apply to any number of White House reporters.
As fun as that might be, I’d rather not.
And you’d have to admit that Mr. Leopold’s story was a lie, and Truthout‘s story was untrue and their excuse for it lame – but you’ve so far failed to acknowledge what is now the blatantly obvious.