Responding to Stupidity With Intellectual Dishonesty

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote a column called, "Bill O'Reilly's Threats." I noticed the title and was wondering what threats O'Reilly had made. But once I read the column I found that the title is a deliberate lie. O'Reilly, who was apparently offended by something Milbank wrote about Fox News, made a bad joke about Milbank.

On Thursday night, the Fox News host asked, as part of a show that would be seen by 5.5 million people: "Does sharia law say we can behead Dana Milbank?" He then added, "That was a joke."

Bill O'Reilly is a moron for making a joke like that on the air, but obviously he isn't actually calling for Milbank's death. Milbank knows this, of course, but in his column he chooses blatant intellectual dishonesty, comparing what O'Reilly said to the murder of Daniel Pearl, and characterizing O'Reilly's words as

O'Reilly's on-air fantasizing about violent ends for me ... violent fantasies [and] intimidation and violent imagery

What a pile of garbage. O'Reilly's stupid joke was not a threat, not intimidation and highly unlikely to represent actual fantasizing about Milbank's head being cut off by Islamic terrorists. But Milbank pretends that it is, purely in order to paint O'Reilly as an advocate of violence. He actually calls O'Reilly's word's "thuggish tactics." Milbank's column provides hard evidence of why he is an intellectually dishonest hack whose writings about pretty much any subject should be taken with a big grain of salt. 

Noted Individual With No Credibility Claims Others Have No Credibility

Andrew Sullivan has long had zero credibility when it comes to anything involving Sarah Palin. His insane hatred for Palin has caused him to subscribe to wild conspiracy theories involving her children, believe any rumor about her concocted by political opponents, and to regularly spew venom in her direction. He's long been one of the biggest hypocrites writing, regularly engaging in the same kinds of tactics and slurs he supposedly deplores in others. That's why it was particularly amusing to read his latest,

The WSJ and TWS have long ago lost any intellectual credibility. They use sophism to maintain power. Their cynicism and/or denial mechanisms are deeper than most mortals can imagine.

Coming from a loon like Sullivan, that's a high recommendation. Both publications should use that in their advertising. But then there is his ridiculous attack on John McCain. According to Sullivan, McCain picking Palin as a vice-presidential candidate was done

so carelessly, and his thought process was so cynical, that he should stand in the dock of public opinion before Palin does. Her vanity led her to say yes to his crazy offer. But he gave her that chance. And in the end, she is his responsibility.

Shorter version: McCain's VP decision was so bad that we can't trust him. He should resign as senator. This is a typical example of why I find Sullivan so laughable in general. It's amazing that so many otherwise intelligent people actually read him regularly and take him seriously. Vice-presidential picks are pretty much always done for cynical political purposes. But more importantly, Sullivan's own candidate Obama picked a complete buffoon, Joe Biden, as his VP candidate. In Sullivan World that should mean we can't trust Obama. Sullivan should be demanding his resignation. But expecting any sort of logical reasoning from him on anything involving Sarah Palin is just not realistic.

Leftist Clown Calls Fox News Un-American

Normally, leftist insane seething hatred for Fox News is merely another amusing illustration of hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty, and an the overall inability to tolerate dissent, characteristics that dominate the left in general. I wrote about the left and Fox News briefly back in June, so I won't repeat everything I said there, but I'll just quote this passage.

One of the funniest things about leftists is their constant whining and sniveling about Fox News, and their inability to distinguish individual shows from general news coverage. If you watch standard news ticker type coverage on Fox, it is very similar to what you get on CNN. Fox slants Republican just as other channels slant Democratic, but it's basically a right of center approach. Fox News is no more extreme right than MSNBC is extreme left.

The Obama administration has been on the attack against Fox, and liberal hack Jacob Weisberg felt compelled to weigh-in, writing an article in Newsweek called, "The O’Garbage Factor." The subtitle is, "Fox News isn't just bad. It's un-American." Speaking of garbage, Weisberg, you might remember, is the same individual who basically smeared all McCain voters as racists, writing at Slate before the election. That piece should have destroyed any claim of his to credibility, but if it didn't, this one in Newsweek should do the trick. He actually makes the unbelievably laughable argument that Fox News has politicized the media, destroying the "century-old tradition of independence" of the press. Where has this clown been? The media has been politicized for my entire lifetime. The major television networks, and most of the big newspapers have long been staffed with people who, in the vast majority, are either Democrats, or favor Democratic policy positions on most major issues. During the lastest election and beyond, we had repeated demonstrations that most of the mainstream media was in the tank for Obama, who received the most uncritical coverage, and the least investigation of probably any presidential candidate in history. The reason Fox News has become so successful, is precisely because it offers an alternative slant that leans right. But having one network that gives a voice to Republicans and others on the right is one too many for Weisberg.

There have been innumerable ridiculous attacks on Fox News from the left. But rarely have I seen one that is either as shamelessly intellectually dishonest, or as utterly clueless as Jacob Weisberg's. It's also worth noting that leftists whined and cried constantly during the Bush years about having their patriotism questioned -- even when such questions were well-deserved. But now that Obama is in power they have no problem calling opponents un-American or treasonous.

Obama Whining About Fox News

CNN reports that Obama dismissed the idea that he's getting uncritical news coverage by pointing to Fox News.  

I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."

That's because they are about the only major news organization actually doing its job with regard to the Obama administration. Much of the rest are pretty much in the tank for Obama. When everyone else is bending over backward to please you, even mild criticism looks like a major attack.

One of the funniest things about leftists is their constant whining and sniveling about Fox News, and their inability to distinguish individual shows from general news coverage. If you watch standard news ticker type coverage on Fox, it is very similar to what you get on CNN. Fox slants Republican just as other channels slant Democratic, but it's basically a right of center approach. Fox News is no more extreme right than MSNBC is extreme left. 

But unlike those on the right, who are used to having non-talk radio media dominated by left of center outlets, the left can't stand having even one television channel that slants toward the GOP, and hosts shows by hardcore conservative types like Hannity. Read almost anyone on the left that writes anything about Fox and you will see the same irrational, sputtering outrage at its mere existence. Now granted, there are conservatives who have a similar crazy hatred of the New York Times. But again, since most see the media establishment as slanting left in general, hatred of the Times in particular doesn't dominate to the extent that liberals hate Fox News. 

Deceptive Headline about Abu Zubaida

The Washington Post has a story out with the title, "Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots." You'd think with such a definitive headline they might have some actual evidence to support it. They don't.  What they have is information from anonymous "former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations." But if you read the article, it is clear that there are other unnamed government officials who strongly disagree.

"It's simply wrong to suggest that Abu Zubaida wasn't intimately involved with al-Qaeda," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much about Abu Zubaida remains classified. "He was one of the terrorist organization's key facilitators, offered new insights into how the organization operated, provided critical information on senior al-Qaeda figures . . . and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members. How anyone can minimize that information -- some of the best we had at the time on al-Qaeda -- is beyond me."

Here we have a major U.S. newspaper, taking the opinion of one set of unnamed officials and presenting it as fact, while effectively dismissing the opposite view of another group -- at least according to their headline. Based on the full report, the headline of the story could just as easily have read: Detainee Harsh Treatment Revealed Invaluable Intelligence. We will almost certainly never have a complete picture of exactly what happened as a result of secret, highly-classified operations against Al Qaeda. People believe what they want to believe because of their political outlook. But it would be nice if our news sources just reported the facts to the best of their knowledge, without such blatantly deceptive slants one way or the other.