Sometimes You Just Have To Smack Them With Their Own Stupidity

Most of you know I occasionally, emphasis on occasionally, do a little link work over at WizBangBlog. There's one particular commenter who likes to make snitty remarks on my posts especially when he thinks he's right. Nine times of ten, I ignore him. Today however, I decided to play with him and decided I had quite a bit of fun.

Below I give you the link round up and the main comments for your entertainment. Of course for the full effect, hop over to wizbang and scroll about halfway down, especially if you want the links since I'm being lazy.

Wednesday Evening Read
Posted by Melissa Murphy
Published: March 26, 2008 - 3:59 PM
"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. ...Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. ...Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." --Frederick Douglass


Have Fun Flying A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down a state law requiring airlines to give food, water, clean toilets and fresh air to passengers stuck in delayed planes, saying the measure was well-intentioned but stepped on federal authority. (Via The Pirate's Cove)


Liberal Fun The 8 Stages Of Liberal/Progressive Discussion When They Are Busted. (Via The Pirate's Cove)


Calling all military wives! Minnesota Star Tribune looking for women whose marriage is failing because their husband is in the military. (Via 4 Right Wing Wackos)


Even Democrats have tantrums Sizable proportion of Democrats vow to vote McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. Didn't we hear that same vow from the Republicans not too long ago? (Via Lucianne)


(This is the article in question)
On Saddam's Orders The Iraqi tyrant didn't "just" aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack. (Via National Review)


Hold the Hysteria It's all media hype and political finger pointing which begs the question "Who's fear mongering now?" (Via Lucianne)


Where's the apology? Senator McCain wants Hillary to apologize to General Petraeus for ridiculing the surge strategy in Iraq. Look for a snowy forecast in hell if she does apologize. (Via Blogs For McCain)


The push for Shari'a law in Great Britain And there are those here who STILL want to emulate Europe. (Via Liberty Pundit)

I'm not sure how I managed to leave out the following three articles from US News from the past couple of weeks, so today you get a triple play from James Pethokoukis.


Deconstructing the 90's Clinton Boom Call it the "Clinton Defense." (Via US News)


The New Deal 2.0 The Return of Big Government. Funny, I thought it never left? (Via US News)


Bail out politics. Count McCain In! Isn't there supposed to be a difference in the two political partys' presidential nominee hopefuls? (Via US News)



He starts here.
*******************
Brian:
On Saddam's Orders The Iraqi tyrant didn't "just" aid anti-American terrorist groups; he explicitly ordered them to attack. (Via National Review)

Nice job. You find an article that vaguely tries to demonstrate an unsupported supposition by stringing unconnected quotes and data together, and then you summarize that article by stating its desired conclusion as a new confirmed fact. Well done.
***************************

Thinking he'll go away, I don't give him any ammo, while wondering what his beef is because the summary clearly wasn't mine.
Melissa:
Brian you keep talking and all I hear is blah blah blah.
Want it done better, get your own blog and have at it.
***************************

So, the author of the article in question asks
Mark Eichenlaub:
Brian,
I've read the report. Have you or just blindly accepted media "reports" of the "summary?"

Posted by Mark Eichenlaub | March 27, 2008 5:00 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
*******************************************
Another reader chimes in:

PoliticalWaif:
Brian said:

You find an article that vaguely tries to demonstrate an unsupported supposition by stringing unconnected quotes and data together, and then you summarize that article by stating its desired conclusion as a new confirmed fact.

It's not about "the article", Brian. The article is merely a summary of the author's take on the 94 pg report.

If you don't want to sound like a complete bozo with your sound byte comments, you may want to read the report yourself. You will probably not like what you read, since it will conflict deeply with what you truly desire to believe.

But that's the breaks. Truth hurts sometimes. You've been media indoctrinated to fit a political agenda for years now. And it's hard to be pleased when historic documents prove you've been duped.



Brian:
No other media reports. I just read the NR article Melissa linked to and determined that it does not warrant the summary she gave it. No other media influence, just reading comprehension.

It's not about "the article", Brian. The article is merely a summary of the author's take on the 94 pg report.

But Melissa based her summary on the article, not the report itself. If the NR author can't even make the case for what he wants to believe by cherry-picking from the report, then I doubt the report itself makes that case any easier.

If you don't want to sound like a complete bozo with your sound byte comments, you may want to read the report yourself. You will probably not like what you read, since it will conflict deeply with what you truly desire to believe.

If the NR article is accurate, then the report probably fits pretty well with what I already believe. It's the failed attempt of the NR article to misrepresent those findings, and then Melissa's false declaration that it was successful, to which I refer.
****************************************************
At this point I realize he absolutely has not read the article:

Melissa:
Brian, had you read the article in the link you would know that the summary you're crediting me with isn't even my summary. It belongs to the article's author.

Also, Brian, #5 above happens to be the author of the article at National Review.

After this he has made no response, yet. I suspect he will, then again, maybe he won't. And now, back to my usual blog self.