View Full Version : Truth vs truthiness,

07-27-2010, 01:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">E.J. Dionne has not only devolved from a thoughtful columnist into a left-wing hit-man, but he has devolved even further, into the realm of a flagrantly dishonest left-wing hit-man. Today's column contains falsehood after falsehood. First, he says the Sherrod flap grew out of a "doctored video pushed by right-wing hit man Andrew Breitbart." <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Truth: The video was not doctored (it was an excerpt), and wasn't even excerpted by Breitbard himself. And Breitbart himself used it in a way meant not to attack Sherrod but to note the applause by the listeners, which was a legitimate point.</span> It was the NAACP and the Obama administration that over-reacted; conservatives, to our credit, asked for more context, and also provided fulsome, generous (perhaps even overly generous) testimonials to the unfairness done to Sherrod.

Second, Dionne blames Fox News for the Obama administration's supposed projection about what Fox would do. As in: "The first reaction of the Obama team was not to question, let alone challenge, the video. Instead, it assumed that whatever narrative Fox News might create mattered more than anything else...." Might create?!?! Give me a break. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>As has been conclusively proved, other than one brief menton by Bill O'Reilly, Fox ran ABSOLUTELY nothing on Sherrod until AFTER she had been fired.</span> ...

Then we get to Dionne's account of the Black Panther case. He writes: "This is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting." WRONG. Does Dionne ever actually do his own research and read documents? <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Two different people, both of them highly credible witnesses, including civil rights legend Bartle Bull, swore under oath that they each saw three people literally turn around and leave without voting after seeing the Panthers.</span> ...

But the worst thing Dionne does is smear the whistle-blowing attorney Christian Adams without ever talking with Adams and without checking the record. He says Adams is not to be taken seriously because he is supposedly a "Republican activist." Oh? Adams volunteered for Bush ballot security in 2004. Does that make him a perjurer not to be taken seriously? What about his long record of winning awards at DoJ? What about his work on behalf of black voting rights in a major case in South Carolina? What about the fact that just in April, the Obama-Holder Justice Department gave him a promotion, and that he has sterling performance reviews throughout his entire career at DoJ?

Then Dionne writes this passage that amounts to one big lie:

Now, Adams is accusing the Obama Justice Department of being "motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." This is racially inflammatory, politically motivated nonsense -- and it's nonsense even if Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about it 1,000 times a day. When an outlandish charge for which there is no evidence is treated as an on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand issue, the liars win.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Nonsense? No evidence? There is Adams' sworn testimony naming names and at times dates; unless he perjured himself, that is evidence. There are the lengthy reports of the going-away speech by Adams' colleague Chris Coates, a longtime civil rights activist who once was a lead lawyer for the ACLU. (The only reason Coates' own testimony is not sworn is because DoJ refused to let him testify.) There are Coates' remarks when Adams left Justice, praising Adams' integrity. There are sworn affidavits from two other former DoJ lawyers backing up the general thrust of Adams' accounts. There are at least three other public statements by other former DoJ officials backing teh general thrust of Adams' accounts, all on this point about whether the Obamites will actually enforce the law against black perpetrators, in defense of white (or other black but right-leaning) victims</span>. And there are a host of other pieces of circumstantial evidence, as compiled by this Washington Times editorial. ...

E.J. Dionne is a dishonest hack. </div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;THE LEFTIST LIE MACHINE CONTINUES&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/26/ej-dionne-prevaricator-extraor)