Thursday, December 14, 2006

Fact-checking Putz's links.

Like most right wingers, Putz is convinced that the media has an anti-American/anti-Bush bias, and his continuous and often venomous attacks on the free press have been well documented on this blog.

There are scores of laughable contradictions and absurdities in his ongoing "we're losing the war because of the pro-terror media" campaign. But one of the most glaring is his insistence that news organizations' reporting is distorted because of their bias, that they make stuff up, and that they are unreliable because of this supposed bias, while he links daily to partisan bloggers who distort, make stuff up and are unreliable.

That is the background behind this brief post.
MORE PEOPLE checking the A.P.'s work in Iraq.
And who are these people, from whom we should get the real story in Iraq? Who are these noble agents of truth and accuracy? This link is to Confederate Yankee, the far-right blogger whose blog is subtitled, "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state."

Let's check a little of Confederate Yankees' recent work.

11/17/2006

Please, tell us why the terrorists that overwhelming [sic] cheered for Democratic victories in the mid-terms [sic] should view a withdrawal from Iraq as anything other than a validation of their tactics and assumptions of how to best to conquer the world.

11/6/2006

Consider the historical fact that such polls tend to oversample [sic] Democrats and undersample [sic] Republicans, and I think we stand a pretty decent possibility of seeing Republicans being able to declare victory in both the House and Senate, if by narrower margins than what they currently hold.Final Prediction. I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Republicans hold the House by six seats and the Senate by three.

10/23/06

Only those on the anti-war left ever (purposefully) misstated that Iraq was involved with the terrorist attacks of September 11, and only the anti-war left ever stated that Saddam's Iraq received uranium from Niger. The Bush Adminstration [sic] did not hold those positions.

6/16/06

Saddam to al Tikriti to Atta. A strong link from Iraq to 9/11. Add this to evidence that Saddam gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder, and I'd say that you're looking at evidence that Saddam was linked to attacks on the World Trade Center not once, but twice.

1/7/2006

Murtha's treason--and I do now classify it as such-- is even more shameful in my opinion, as he seeks to undermine not only the United States while at war, but he seeks to undermine another nation, Iraq, that has shown a stronger commitment to democracy each time it has been tested at the ballot box.

6/1/2005

Critics of the Bush administration have been quick to point out that attacks by the insurgency have not declined since the Iraqi elections, and that the numbers of attacks have actually increased. While technically accurate, this criticism misses the larger context that seems to bolster Cheney's that the insurgency is in its "last throes."… It is quite likely that any widespread insurgency in Iraq will fall apart well before the end of the Bush administration. It is possible that the insurgency will collapse by early 2007, and it could conceivably devolve from its current level of operations into local, cell-level operations with little or no widespread planning and coordination capabilities by as early as late 2005.

2/11/2005

It seems to me, based upon the words of Iran's mullahcracy, that taking them out now is the only sensible course of action. Better a little burning Hell now than a purpetual [sic] glow later.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I longer read Instapundit. The willful blindess to the situation in Iraq was one turn-off; the "hey-have-you-seen-my-new-$2,000-camera" posts were others.

But really, I just see the blog as a mass of wasted potential. When he was A.G. Android on Slate's The Fray, Instapundit was a genuinely interesting and provocative poster who followed his libertarianism wherever it went. The first month of Instapundit was a revelation, too: His posts on the stem-cell debate (he was for it) were honest-to-God good.

Then September 11. And Iraq. And suddenly he was calling the media and all dissenters traitors, refusing for one minute to seriously consider the possibilities of restraint. The first warning sign for me came in early 2002, when he accused a newspaper of calling for the assassination of George Bush after they ran an editorial praising the Army's victory in Afghanistan and noting that the Army did so despite Bush's claims in 2000 that Clinton had systematically gutted the armed forces. That seemed a bit much (even conservative Patrick Ruffini told him so).

And then Iraq, and so on, and suddenly he was a LINO. To justify his unblinking support of the war, he linked to increasingly extreme websites, which necessarily turned his readership rightward. The attitude changed, too: Early on in the blog, he met accusations of bias by claiming that it was just a hobby and that he would quit any time it stopped being fun. With the ads and the TechCentral and MSNBC deals, he no longer says that. I suspect (without proof) that it's become a monkey-making venture for him. He's created a generally right-wing audience that will not brook any dissent from the party line. They give him their support, and he gives them to advertisers -- but he must know that not feeding them red meat will lead to mass defections. Note the mass abandonment of Andrew Sullivan when he questioned the conduct of the war; note the "de-linking" campaign when Reynolds said he didn't think the ACLU was all bad. Whatever Reynolds' feeling are, my guess is that Instapundit will stop making money if/when he ever fully questions the conduct of the war.

So, he links to sites like that one. His audience demands it. In some ways, I feel bad for Reynolds: He's become a willing prisoner of his readers. And he's squandered a real chance to offer a new sort of dialogue in the country.