Jan
29

Bring It




Posted at 5:36 by Brad

Michelle Malkin, upset that she got completely humiliated by Dr. Aristophanes and Dr. Gavin, issues a challenge:

Tellingly, the pathetic, attempted debunker fails to link to either my post at mm.com or my full report at the NYPost, which give the full details and nuance (plus more photos) of what we found versus what the AP reported (and didn’t report). There is now an all-too-predictable attempt to distort our reports. Read. Them. In. Their. Entirety. For. Yourselves.

Deal.

Gavin adds: Criminy, it’s that certain tone of voice which has by now become so familiar. I want to pop in here for a moment to respond to a charge levied by Bryan over at Hot Air:

I see that our friends at Sadly, No! can’t distinguish between a mosque having a hole in an onion-shaped thing on top and that mosque being destroyed, as the AP reported on Nov 24. That failure to distinguish between such widely varying descriptions should guide you if you read anything else published there.

michellemalkin.jpg
Above: A mosque being destroyed hole in an onion-shaped thing.

I believe this settles the point.

[Gav out]

Here’s Michelle’s piece in the New York Post:

WELL, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior says disputed Associated Press source Jamil Hussein does exist. But at least one story he told the AP just doesn’t check out: The Sunni mosques that as Hussein claimed and AP reported as “destroyed,” “torched” and “burned and [blown] up” are all still standing. So the credibility of every AP story relying on Jamil Hussein remains dubious.

So Michelle’s main claim here is that these mosques were not “burned” or “torched” or “blown up” (incidentally, I couldn’t find any version of the AP report where it specifically said the mosques were “destroyed.” If anyone can find one, please leave a linky to it in the comments). Just keep that in mind when you read this later in her piece:

One of the mosques identified by the AP, the Nidaa Alah mosque, had been abandoned and vacant at the time it was hit with small-arms fire, say Iraqi and U.S. Army officials. Two of its inside rooms were burned out by a lobbed firebomb, according to an Army report.

Three other mosques in the area – the al Muhaymin, al Mushahiba and Ahbab Mustafa mosques – sustained small-arms fire damage to their exteriors; the Mustafa mosque also had two rooms burned out by a firebomb.

So other than the small-arms fire damage and the rooms burned out by firebombs, I guess the mosques were in just dandy shape!

And now let’s go to the original AP report about the rampaging militias:

Earlier that day, rampaging militiamen burned and blew up four mosques and torched several homes in the capital’s mostly Shia neighborhood of Hurriyah, police said. Iraqi.

You could quibble, I suppose, that the writer should have said the mosques were “burned or blown up” since it’s not clear (at least the way Michelle tells it) that all four mosques were firebombed. But since Michelle only visited two of the mosques herself (and one of them had a huge frickin’ hole blown out the top of it!), we don’t really know for sure.

Now let’s step back for a minute and look at the Big Picture here. Pretend, if you will, that you’re the insurer for one of these mosques. And let’s say the mosque owner calls you and says, “Hey, Ms. Malkin, I’d like to file a damage claim for one of our mosques.”

And you say, “OK, how bad is the damage.”

And he says, “Oh, it’s not bad at all. I think you guys will be able to cover it just fine.”

And you say, “OK, so it sounds minor. It’s not like it’s been blown up or anything, right?”

And he says, “Well, except for the firebombs that got lobbed in and burned out two rooms, no.”

And you say, “Oh.”

And he says, “Oh, and there’s a large-ass gaping hole in the top of the dome.”

And you say, “Uh…”

And he says, “But really, it’s not that bad!”

And so on. And so forth.

Now, let’s go onto some of the other little jewels in Michelle’s New York Post piece:

When the AP ran its head- line-grabbing and horrifying account of alleged atrocities in Baghdad last Thanksgiving, its main source was an Iraqi police captain, one Jamil Hussein.

Bloggers led by Curt of Flopping Aces (floppingaces.net) raised questions about the veracity and existence of Hussein and the information he supplied to the AP. U.S. military officials and the Iraqi government initially disputed that Hussein was employed as a legitimate police officer.

Uh, he didn’t just “dispute” it, Michelle. He flat-out claimed that the guy wasn’t for real. And as you yourself wrote, “the fact that there is no police captain named ‘Jamil Hussein’ working now or ever in either Yarmouk or al Khadra, according to on-the-ground sources in Baghdad.” And when it turned out that Jamil really did exist, you just chalked it up as a minor “oopsie” and went on to post your usual manufactured outrage about Barney Frank saying mean things about the poor defensewess pweisident.

Now, let’s cut to the chase. As I see it, the major point Michelle is trying to make with this whole shriekfest is this:

[T]he soldiers say this particular story doesn’t stand up. And if this one doesn’t, how many others don’t? As AP exec Carroll herself said, “AP runs hundreds of stories a day, and has run thousands of stories about things that have happened in Iraq.” Jamil Hussein supplied the AP with information for scores of stories, not just this faulty one. Rumor-based reporting serves no one’s interests but those who would see Iraq fail.

In other words: “Iraq is not as bad as is portrayed in the MSM. The story about the burned mosques is just one of the many distortions being used by the enemy to sap America’s resolve and embolden the insurgency.”

Is that the basic message you wanted to convey Michelle? Yes? OK. Good.

Let’s turn to some of the atrocities that you acknowledge do occur in Iraq on a regular basis:

Bryan Preston and I visited the area during our Iraq trip last week. Several mosques did, in fact, come under attack by Mahdi Army forces. [...]

Two of [the Nidaa Alah mosque's] inside rooms were burned out by a lobbed firebomb, according to an Army report. [...]

MURDERS do happen regularly in their area, the soldiers emphasized. And no one sugarcoated the brutality of the Shiite militia. But the soldiers say this particular story doesn’t stand up. [...]

MANY Iraqis lie to survive. Rumor is the common national dialect that unites the country’s warring sects and tribes. Sunni journalists carry multiple ID cards to disguise themselves. Shiite Iraqi Army members hide their day jobs – changing into uniform only after arriving on base.

Now, let’s say for the sake of argument that the AP completely botched its reporting of the mosque-burning incident. In fact, let’s say that these four mosques were never even shot at, firebombed or hit with RPGs. By your own admission, then, Iraq would still be a country where:

1.) “Several” mosques regularly come under attack from ethnic militias.
2.) Said militias try to burn the mosques by lobbing firebombs through the windows.
3.) Murders “happen regularly” in Baghdad, and parts of the city are being run by a “brutal” Shiite militia.
4.) Sects and tribes are “warring.”
5.) Shiite Iraqi Army members have to hide their day jobs from the general public for fear of being murdered.

Again, these are things that you acknowledge in your piece are true about Iraq. In the broader context of all these things, are four torched mosques honestly that big a deal? If the AP actually had misreported the details of this incident, would that take away from the fact that Iraq has devolved into a chaotic, violent shithole full of “warring tribes and sects?”

Oh hey, look over there! John Kerry can’t get anyone to sit with him! The troops must hate his guts!

okcity.jpg
Above: The Oklahoma City building, still standing.

UPDATE: See also.

UPDATE II: Oh, this is a beaut. Thanks to Cutler John for bringing us this blast from the past. Michelle appparently takes a less skeptical view of reporting firebombings when it supports her meta-narrative:

The Religion of Peace Firebombs & Fatwas

By Michelle Malkin · September 16, 2006 09:09 PM

anglicanfire.jpg

Yahoo News: Anglican church in Gaza firebombed

Say, doesn’t the smoke in that picture look a little dark? Hmmmmmm…

UPDATE III: Final update before going to bed. Bryan responds:

The IA responded to the attacks in Hurriya on Nov 24, both by helping put out the fires and by attempting to round up the attackers. The AP got that wrong.

According to the same people who said Jamil Hussein didn’t exist, yes.

No mosques were destroyed in those attacks. The AP got that wrong.

The original AP article that I read said the mosques were burned and blown up. I couldn’t find a version of the article where it specifically said they were “destroyed.” If you have one, please send it to me.
Now, I admitted earlier that the AP should have said that the mosques were burned OR blown up, since it isn’t entirely clear that all of them got blown up. Since you and Michelle only visited two of the mosques (the ones that were actually firebombed, no less!), we don’t have enough information to really judge. And yes, amigo, when you lob a firebomb into a building, I consider that building for all intents and purposes blown up and burned. A local Cuban restaurant down the street from me got firebombed a couple years back, and the entire inside of the building was destroyed. From the outside, though, the building was still standing. I guess calling that restaurant blown up and burned would be another example of MSM lies and distortions intended to sap my will to eat fried plantains!

There were no six Sunnis burned. The AP got that wrong.

Again, according to people who said Jamil Hussein didn’t exist. Do some actual reporting instead of reciting government press releases, ya chump propagandist.

50 Comments »

  1. GeoX said,

    January 29, 2007 at 5:49

    This is Malkin’s consistent MO: blow a whole hell of a lot of smoke about any minor inconsistency she can find in stories she doesn’t like, in order to dismiss facts that even she doesn’t deny. I’m kind of self-conscious about blogwhoring, but here is a completely different piece of hers that uses the exact same technique.

  2. Brad R. said,

    January 29, 2007 at 5:52

    For some reason, running her “work” through a shredder is incredibly addictive, no?

    I need to get a life. I freely admit it.

  3. steve_e said,

    January 29, 2007 at 5:59

    Wingnuts must be masochists. Maybe they like it when people laugh at them. Maybe it feeds the victimization thing they have going. I don’t know.

    You’d think by now they’d realize they lose every damn argument they start. Their entire outlook on the world appears to be based on events that are happening in another dimension. Do they ever wonder why their “ideas” never meet up with the reality occurring in this dimension? It’s really not hard to figure out why.

    They should comment on things that are happening in the real world and say, “I wish things would have occurred like this:,” then explain what they would like to have happened if their political views could reshape reality. That wouldn’t make their stories real, but at least they wouldn’t have to pretend they are telling the truth.

    The Internet allows people to debunk their stories in minutes. Wingnut bloggers tell their readers what they want to here (nothing wrong with that). They weed out their comments section for dissenters (not just in cases of extreme trolling, but normal disagreement). But they can’t control everyone else. Anyone who looks into their world is just dumbstruck by how easily they are led to believe fantasy.

  4. ifthethunderdontgetya³² said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:05

    Sadly, So! these dolts are the ones who keep the decider near 30%. And there’s big money in it…the WaPo editorial page today is full of wingnuttiens (Dinesh whining, Robert Kagan war mongering, George Will picking nits, Dave Broder carping about Hillary).

    Blargh!

  5. Phredd said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:05

    Anyone heard from Eason Fucking Jordan about the whole thing? Cause he’s the one who financed the little excursion. I see he links to the NY Post article, which does *not* contain a picture of the mosque, which is *not destroyed* but does have a huge hole blown out the top, and lots of smoke damage around the doors.

    Oh well. I enjoyed the hell out of the whole brouhaha. Thanks. Hopefully, it hasn’t come to an end.

  6. Cutler John said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:19

    Posted this at tbogg, but thought I should put the link here too: a somewhat different attitude toward covering a firebombing…

    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005938.htm

  7. kingubu said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:19

    Its not even that complicated, steve_e. Malkin gets paid for one reason only: FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt).

    Its never about getting at the truth, its only ever about giving her readers an excuse to believe that the whole world is against them, and only those sources that bear the Good Wingnut Seal offer the real truth. Its a pretty standard tactic among cults.

  8. owlbear1 said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:23

    Some people do the most bizarre shit to keep their compartments locked down.

    In the great tradition of Sen. Frist. I declare Malkin, you are borderline retarded and an Pathological liar!! Seek professional help.

    Also, thanks for outing the the most stupid and corrupt citizens America has yet generated, your loyal readership and the EvangleBucks backing you.

  9. cokane said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:31

    Is. Anyone. Else. Sick. And. Tired. Of. Michelle. Imaginative. Use. Of. Sentence. Structure. This. Is. Such. Great. Writing. Wow. More. Journalists. Should. File. Stories. In. This. Manner. So. Clever. We. Could. Use. It. Over. And. Over. And. Over. And. It. Will. Never. Get. Old. Wait. My. Bloodpressure. Is. Getting. Too. High.

  10. Some Guy said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:45

    Michelle Malkin: Too stupid to know you can Google “Michelle Malkin” and find her site.
    I always thought of linking as more of a courtesy and a convenience to the reader then anything else.

    “[T]he soldiers say this particular story doesn’t stand up. And if this one doesn’t, how many others don’t?”
    Like your story of the Hussein thing being fake? Oops, right. Standards for OTHERS, not yourself.

    I refer once again to the Cult Mentality of the Wingnuts.
    “You cannot trust Them. You can only trust Us; your Family. They lie to you, We would never lie to you…”

  11. RSA said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:45

    That last picture is just of a non-pork-based barbecue that’s gotten out of control. No destruction there.

  12. Some Guy said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:48

    Agreed. The Best. Punctuation. Ever. should now and forever be restrained to statements of four words or less.

  13. Gavin M said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:50

    We humiliated ourselves. And it seems we can’t stop.

    Oh, the humanity. How dare we be so crude. It’s all we have left, I guess. Get it, left??? Huh??? That was a little funny, wasn’t it???

    I don’t know what’s funny anymore. I know this article sure isn’t. Again, sorry Michelle, we just don’t have what it takes.

    We only mock those who do.

    You sure won’t see us going to Iraq. Or anywhere really. We just sit home and try to console ourselves by being bitter and hateful.

    And by truthfully picking at scraps. We suck. We really suck.

  14. Brad Altrocket said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:52

    We just sit home and try to console ourselves by being bitter and hateful.

    Which makes us much worse than people who, say, spend hours on end obsessively leaving comments at our site and hitting “refresh” every 30 seconds.

  15. Hot Air » Blog Archive » Andrew Sullivan smears US troops; Update: Kaus unloads on Sullivan; Update: with a response to Sadly, No!Updated one last time said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:53

    [...] Last update (Bryan): Yes, kids, facts do matter. Fake but accurate won’t cut it anymore. That’s not even a new argument you’re deploying about the relevance of facts in a given debate, in the days after Rathergate. It’s been tried, and it didn’t work then and won’t work now. [...]

  16. cokane said,

    January 29, 2007 at 6:56

    additionally, according to Malkin-logic all of her iraq reporting is suspect. She wrote at one point: “I went to Iraq as a skeptic of whether this war was winnable and came back an optimistic supporter.” But obviously anyone who does a search on her weblog about Iraq will find this is a lie.

    Doesn’t this mean that we can’t believe anything this woman has ever written? Maybe she is a liberal out trying to parody conservative punditry. She is doing a fine job.

  17. Gavin M said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:00

    How do you keep a liberal busy?

    http://bloggingpoints.blogspot.com/2006/12/how-do-you-keep-liberal-busy.html

  18. Cutler John said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:01

    If Descartes had been as “skeptical” in his cabin as Malkin says she was before going to Iraq, I think he would have picked up the wax, said “Fuck it- I know what I know, that’s for sure” and gone to get some good Belgian beer.

  19. Some Guy said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:09

    “Which makes us much worse than people who, say, spend hours on end obsessively leaving comments at our site and hitting “refreshâ€? every 30 seconds.”

    …We have feelings too, you bastard. :(

  20. Col Bat Guano said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:15

    Fake but accurate won’t cut it anymore.

    You appear to be going for the “stupid and dishonest” style and succeeding masterfully. How’s Abu Saayef these days?

  21. Gavin M. said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:21

    Gavin M said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:00 · Edit

    How do you keep a liberal busy?

    No more namestealing tonight, you two.

  22. Gavin M said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:24

    Namestealing is not against the rules…..remember? It’s FUN. Your words.

    My words, I mean. I mean shit, poor Annie Angel gets namestolen here all the time. So does Shoelimpy. It’s not fair for me/you to say that only they can be namestolen, links and all, now IS IT??

    Or is it different when it’s you/me?? And not even links and exact names, but oh my…..hypocrisy is ABOUNDING.

  23. Harry Cheddar said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:34

    Mr. Praline: I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

    Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?

    Mr. Praline: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!

    Owner: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.

    Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.

    Owner: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn’it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

    Mr. Praline: The plumage don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead.

    Owner: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!

    Mr. Praline: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) ‘Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I’ve got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you
    show…

    (owner hits the cage)

    Owner: There, he moved!

    Mr. Praline: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the cage!

    Owner: I never!!

    Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

    Owner: I never, never did anything…

    Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) ‘ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!

    (Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

    Mr. Praline: Now that’s what I call a dead parrot.

    Owner: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!

    Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

    Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

    Mr. Praline: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour
    ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

    Owner: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the fjords.

    Mr. Praline: PININ’ for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got ‘im home?

    Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin’ on it’s back! Remarkable bird, id’nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

    Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the
    first place was that it had been NAILED there.

    (pause)

    Owner: Well, o’course it was nailed there! If I hadn’t nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent ‘em apart with its beak, and
    VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

    Mr. Praline: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this bird wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!

  24. annieangel said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:52

    You liberal cocksuckers need to leave Michelle Malkin alone! I live for those nights when I have lesbian dreams about her.

  25. tb said,

    January 29, 2007 at 7:57

    As long as we’re killing the thread here:

    Peter: Mr. Spigott you are, I believe, auditioning for the part of Tarzan?

    Dudley: Right.

    Peter: Now, Mr. Spigott, I couldn’t help noticing almost at once that you are a one-legged person.

    Dudley: You noticed that?

    Peter: I noticed that, Mr. Spigott. When you have been in the business as long as I have you come to notice these things almost instinctively. Now, Mr. Spigott, you, a one-legged man, are applying for the role of Tarzan — a role which, traditionally, involves the use of a two-legged actor.

    Dudley: Correct.

    Peter: And yet you, a unidexter, are applying for the role.

    Dudley: Right.

    Peter: A role for which two legs would seem to be the minimum requirement.

    Dudley: Very true.

    Peter: Well, Mr. Spigott, need I point out to you where your deficiency lies as regards landing the role?

    Dudley: Yes, I think you ought to.

    Peter: Need I say with overmuch emphasis that it is in the leg division that you are deficient.

    Dudley: The leg division?

    Peter: Yes, the leg division, Mr. Spigott. You are deficient in it — to the tune of one. Your right leg I like. I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role. That’s what I said when I saw you come in. I said ‘A lovely leg for the role.’ I’ve got nothing against your right leg. The trouble is — neither have you. You fall down on your left.

    Dudley: You mean it’s inadequate?

    Peter: Yes, it’s inadequate, Mr. Spigott. And, to my mind, the British public is not ready for the sight of a one-legged ape-man swinging through the jungly tendrils.

    Dudley: I see.

    Peter: However, don’t despair. After all, you score over a man with no legs at all. Should a legless man come in here demanding the role, I should have no hesitation in saying ‘Get out. Run away’.

  26. annieangel said,

    January 29, 2007 at 8:00

    And I say whats wrong if a woman tongue-polished a certain philipino lady’s lower seal until my face looked like a glazed donut.

  27. MarcInLosAngeles said,

    January 29, 2007 at 8:10

    Is it me, or is that photo in “Hot Airs” response to this Post, actually showing an Intact dome? The videocapture appears to show at least 3/4 of the Dome destroyed, including the Top. However, in their Photo that they claim is from “a different angle,” it looks like you can see about half of the dome, with no damage whatsoever. Also, the decorative spire at the top of the Dome is intact. Anybody see a spire in the videocapture? Me neither.

    I could be wrong.. or maybe it’s just my ‘partisan views.’ Like Colbert said, “the facts have a well-known liberal bias.” :-)

  28. DocAmazing said,

    January 29, 2007 at 8:14

    Oooo, the image! Take it away!

  29. elendil said,

    January 29, 2007 at 8:19

    incidentally, I couldn’t find any version of the AP report where it specifically said the mosques were “destroyed.� If anyone can find one, please leave a linky to it in the comments

    Hot air provides one link to a Townhall article here, saying There are no links because I got these off the raw AP wire. As far as I can tell, the reference to the mosques being “destroyed” appeared only once, in the earliest version of the raw AP wire, some 20 minutes before any mention was made of burned Sunnis. When the latter reached the wire, the mosques were described as merely “burned”, not “destroyed”.

    If my understanding of this is correct, that implies that the misreporting of the mosques being “destroyed” happened before the report from Jamil Hussein was made, perhaps before it was obtained or available. If that’s true, then the receipt of Hussein’s report coincided with the correction to the incorrect report, rather than the error that Malkin-thing is getting very worked up about. Which further suggests that Malkin-thing has just waged an admirable campaign against one big straw dummy, even going all the way to Iraq to construct it, only to have it turn around and win.

    As an aside, if Townhall find the quote ending “…while the Shiite-dominated police force stood by and did nothing” so remarkable that it deserves highlighting with their bold-text of dubiousness, then they need to wake up and smell the coffee corpses rotting on the streets of Baghdad with drill holes in their skulls and the police handcuffs still attached to their wrists. This shit has been going on for a very long time, and it’s not just Iraqi forces that stand by and do nothing. Considering what happened the last time American and Iraqi forces teamed up to clean-up the streets, Townhall better be ready with the bold-text of dubiousness and the italics of indignation, that al-Reuters or Associated Terrorists would dare sully the name of Our Troops with such baseless claims, as I guarantee they will claim in the next few months if not before then.

  30. elendil said,

    January 29, 2007 at 8:30

    And why is everyone suddenly “Dr”? Is this a subtle dig at someone? Are you people being mean to poor ol’ Mr Goldstein again?

  31. Tank said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:04

    Hot … Andrew Sullivan smears US troops … Kaus unloads on Sullivan

    Dirtiest trackback ever.

  32. Incontinentia Buttocks said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:09

    And look at the kerning on that onion-shaped thing!

  33. Pfizzer said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:12

    incidentally, I couldn’t find any version of the AP report where it specifically said the mosques were “destroyed.�

    As recently as Friday this guy was referring the original articles to the AP board with repeated referfences to only “burned and blown up”…
    http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/213483.php

    Attributing “destroyed” mosques to AP would appear to either be an invention or a gripe about something which was withdrawn/corrected so early that it cannot be found anywhere, which is equally as lame.

  34. John Owens said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:25

    Kinda OT, but:

    …fails to link to either my post at mm.com….

    (link added) What, she can’t even be bothered to spell out her own domain name? Or does she really think she’s Minnesota MicroNet? Who knows what delusions lurk in the hearts of wingnuts?

  35. Mand Ttaca said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:44

    Michelle. Seems. To. Be. Loosing. Patience.

  36. Anne Laurie said,

    January 29, 2007 at 9:49

    Wingnuts must be masochists. Maybe they like it when people laugh at them. Maybe it feeds the victimization thing they have going… They should comment on things that are happening in the real world and say, “I wish things would have occurred like this:,â€? then explain what they would like to have happened if their political views could reshape reality. That wouldn’t make their stories real, but at least they wouldn’t have to pretend they are telling the truth.

    Simple explanation? A lot of the Wingnut Wurlitzer Welfare Wankers simply make stuff up. They decide how a particular event should have happened — or, for the truly lazy, they get the fax explaining what all paid-up WWWW now believe about that event — and that’s what they “report”. When it turns out the truth is more, uh, ‘nuanced’ than ‘Dirty hippies spit on crippled vet, eat babies & kick starving dog’, they just crank up the volume on their imaginary “reporting”.

    And — sadly, yes! — they assume that us moonbats are doing the same thing… making stuff up, parroting the faxes from our paymasters, shouting loudly when Ugly Reality threatens to break through the noise from the circus calliope. Because in Wingnut Wurlitzer Welfare Wanker World, there are no unbiased observers — only high-dollar courtesans and low-rent hookers. And if that kid keeps saying that the Emperor has no clothes, he must be a paid moonbat agent spreading disinformation meant to discourage the emperor’s hardworking trainbearers.

    No wonder the WWWW hate us so much. There’s nothing a prostitute hates more than someone who’s “giving It away”. Because people who claim they’re having sex just for fun not only cut into the prospective sex-buyers market, they make the hardworking sexual professionals look like, well, whores!

  37. nonothing said,

    January 29, 2007 at 11:20

    Don’t you all see.. it’s just another version of the ‘glass is half full /empty’ thing. And the crazy right-wingers are just optimists.

    Some see a Mosque that’s been ‘burned and blown up’, while others more optimistically see a Mosque that isn’t quite burned down to the ground yet.
    And some pessimists might see a ‘downer’ of an AP story attributed to a police man, and a more optimistic person would say ‘that guy never existed and that never happened!’ Who’s to say whats fact and whats fiction… its all your perspective! And after going to the mosque and seeing it with your own eyes that’s no reason to change your perspective on the events.

    Oh, and did Malkin even try to find this mysterious man that all the right-wing blogs pronounced non-existant? I bet she looked around the airport and concluded ‘Nope, no Jammy Husseins here.’

    P.S. great onion ring joke.

  38. Alex said,

    January 29, 2007 at 13:39

    “Nuance”. “NUANCE”. Let’s try that again. Michelle Malkin is trying to appeal to…nuance. What happened to gut checks and moral clarity?

  39. spencer said,

    January 29, 2007 at 16:06

    Is. Anyone. Else. Sick. And. Tired. Of. Michelle. Imaginative. Use. Of. Sentence. Structure. This. Is. Such. Great. Writing. Wow. More. Journalists. Should. File. Stories. In. This. Manner. So. Clever. We. Could. Use. It. Over. And. Over. And. Over. And. It. Will. Never. Get. Old. Wait. My. Bloodpressure. Is. Getting. Too. High.

    This style of “writing” was all the rage in the ad copywriting world about six years ago, back when I still did that sort of thing. Then, after burning very brightly for a short while, the enthusiasm for this style of copy seemed to flash out pretty quickly.

    It’s no surprise that Michelle is still hanging on to an affectation discarded by ad guys years ago.

  40. Dave said,

    January 29, 2007 at 16:34

    Hey, I think you guys are being a little rough on Michelle. And Michelle, I’d like to invite you to come to our church and worship with us. We, too, had a little “burn damage” recently but the church is still standing like those mosques still are. See you next Sunday!

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/galleries/2006/0115/photos_of_2005?pg=12

  41. prozacula said,

    January 29, 2007 at 21:17

    man. I’m sick of malkin et al constantly lying in an attempt to discredit the AP.

    BUT.

    I’m MORE sick of annie angel bringing her dilapidated old visage around these parts, neglecting to use her stupid nom de plume, and spewing her anti-left crap at us in thinly veiled / poorly written screed.

    If, as your blog claims, you are tired of talking to us ‘because we don’t listen’ to you, then shut the hell up already and go away!

  42. prozacula said,

    January 30, 2007 at 0:47

    I wish I was Annie so bad. I wish she knew who I was. I wish I didn’t have such a stupid name. Sigh.

  43. STH said,

    January 30, 2007 at 1:42

    Please do not eed-fay the it-tway.

  44. annieangel said,

    January 30, 2007 at 2:25

    I think I just soiled myself again.

  45. Kathleen said,

    January 30, 2007 at 11:12

    The plaintive cry about the Ever Moving Goalposts in the Fifth Update (yea, they obviously don’t care about your posts AT ALL) made me laugh. That must be assigned to macro 3 since “fake but accurate” is clearly the go-to macro, set to number one. Probably Alt+1. I wonder how much of your random Malkin post is over 50% macros. “Time for a new post. Alt+1. Shift+F4. Alt+1 again. love that one.” and so on.

  46. Kevin said,

    January 30, 2007 at 15:56

    Why did you delete my comments proving that Michelle and Bryan were in fact correct? Has Sadlyno been kossified? Is this now a groupthink zone?

    I guess I’ll take it as a compliment to my debating skills. Good luck in the future! Don’t be evil.

  47. g said,

    January 30, 2007 at 19:57

    How does a comment prove anything?

    Evidence provides proof. Comments are nothing without evidence.

  48. Karl Rove II said,

    January 30, 2007 at 21:01

    “Why did you delete my comments proving that Michelle and Bryan were in fact correct?”

    Brad & Gavin don’t delete comments, so either you’re lying…or you made the comment in the wrong area.

  49. Ira Rollover WebLog » Blog Archive » www.millenniumeffect.co.uk said,

    July 21, 2007 at 15:02

    [...] Sadly, No! » Bring It … as “destroyed,” “torched” and “burned and [blown] up … Oooo, the image! Take it away! elendil said, January 29, 2007 at 8:19 … Atrios; Beast Blog; Clown Central Station; Common Sense; Corrente; Crooked … http://sadlyno.com/archives/4926.html [...]

  50. Malkin Smears Lara Logan | TaylorMarsh.com said,

    May 2, 2009 at 22:02

    [...] Malkin is at it again. It doesn’t matter how many times we catch her spreading fabricated nonsense, she just keeps on inventing things. I caught her last summer when she went after Clinton. Malkin [...]

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()