May 18, 2005
Rants:
The accounts are coming due
By Jack GrantAmazingly, a blogger who previously accused Newsweek of being traitorous, to wit, "Screw Michael Isikoff and Newsweek. Quislings that they are," among other intemperate statements such as, "scummy, traitorous Americans whose contempt for their own nation could not have been more clearly illustrated," now admits that the report was not the first of a Koran being abused by US forces, and continues with "perhaps some of us overreacted."
No shit...
Rather ironic coming from someone who wrote, "Type M arguments really bug me, and after reading Kling's piece I'm going to start trying harder to avoid them."
I guess some in blogworld DO think after they finish jerking their knees after all, but I cannot refrain from saying, "Perhaps they saw what they wanted to see."
Unfortunately, their after-the-fact admissions are just as weak as those they accused Newsweek of performing.
I now will call a spade a spade. Time for the gloves to come off. If bloggers are going to accuse the now infamous "MainStream Media" to account every time they screw up, then it is time to call bloggers to the same accounting.
Jerking their knees must give them a similar satisfaction similar to jerking off, otherwise they wouldn't do it so readily, do you think?
As you can see, I have completely had it with the hypocrisy.
You can see my prior rants on this issue here (in order of posting, first to last):
Forgetting fundamentals amidst the uproar from the partisan noise machines
Posted by Jack Grant at 01:21 on 18 May 2005
I see a lot of quotes from Jihaddis and words like "alledged" and "complained". There have been previous reports of UFOs before - doesn't make it so.
As far as the knee jerk thing goes, maybe we're just not as good at it as the moonbattery - don't have the timing down quite right.
You can do what you want with all the minutia - that fact is Newsweek published a story they knew would do damage to the US - based upon smoke for evidence. Newsweek stated journalistic ethics were violated. Don't take a blogger's word for it - read the response from the mag.
There are plenty of legitimate mistakes made by representatives of this nation - you don't have to go making stuff up.
Posted by: Joel (No Pundit Intended) at May 18, 2005 05:27 AMGood grief. No wonder so few people are unwilling to let thir opinions be swayed by new facts. If they dare show any flexibility in their assessment, hardcore types like you come along and pound them into the dust for it.
If you seek debate, do so with honor. Not opportunism.
Posted by: Aziz at May 18, 2005 05:30 AMI have debated Dean before, and he did not "debate", he ranted, just as he did about this issue.
Saying that statements like "Screw Michael Isikoff and Newsweek. Quislings that they are," and "scummy, traitorous Americans whose contempt for their own nation could not have been more clearly illustrated," are out of line, especially coming from someone who claimed to not like "motivation type arguments" is not opportunism. It is calling a spade a spade.
Read my other posts on this issue. I was talking about this BEFORE I saw what Dean wrote. I would also suggest you look at my blog *as a whole* before you start calling me an opportunist or not honorable.
Posted by: Jack at May 18, 2005 08:40 AMSo, Jack, would you say that you now have enough evidence to declare Esmay emotionally unbalanced- or would it take something more? DAN
Posted by: Dan Schneider at May 18, 2005 02:34 PM
