Media Matters lies about HA’s response to Jamilgate
posted at 6:22 pm on January 6, 2007 by Allahpundit
Here’s what’s cooking on their front page as I write this. I’m surprised they used a good photo of Michelle; the official left-wing Malkin-as-hate-object signal is one of those goofy screencaps from her appearance on Hardball.
It must be because they’re respectable.
The headline, “Warbloggers refuse to admit their errors in making fraud allegations against AP,” links to Boehlert’s latest piece. It’s followed by an item about Brit Hume supposedly announcing that the AP’s been vindicated on the whole “Iraq atrocity story.” Alas, that’s not what Hume said, but that’s beside the point. The point is, by starting with that headline and the Hume item, MM wants you to scan the remaining items and think that they’re all examples of warbloggers responding to the news about Hussein’s existence by taking shots at Boehlert to change the subject. E.g., “Hot Air on ‘Boehlert’s disingenuousness.'” See the irony? I reacted to evidence of the Iraqi MOI’s disingenuousness by accusing Boehlert of the same because I can’t admit when I’m wrong. Wingnut.
Except I didn’t. Media Matters’s item about Hot Air links to a post I wrote in December answering Boehlert’s columns on Jamilgate. Why would MM mislead their readers by linking to an old piece that doesn’t address the most recent news instead of to a newer post that does? Because if you read that newer post, you’ll find this:
She [i.e., Michelle] and we were wrong about Jamil Hussein. Whether we’re wrong about the rest of it, too, we’ll see. Apologies, though, to the HA readers for having led you on a bit of a wild goose chase, however well founded and well intended our suspicions were.
Precisely the opposite of the generalization they’re trying to make. Predictably, Boehlert doesn’t quote or so much as mention that paragraph in his new piece, either. And it’s not just me — the items about Patterico, Junkyard Blog, and Rightwing Nuthouse are all from December, too. As Boehlert notes, there are right-wing bloggers who don’t consider this a mistake; why MM would populate its list with old posts from those who us who do is strange and suspicious.
And lest anyone misunderstand, I stand by every word of that post from December. My point there was that the left doesn’t care if this story’s true or not. They simply don’t care, and that’s been borne out by their reaction. Their interest in what happened at Hurriyah and in the other 60+ stories sourced to Hussein begins and ends with its usefulness as a gotcha against the right. One lefty blogger I read actually admitted she didn’t know the details of the case — but felt moved to comment on it anyway. To borrow a phrase from my favorite discredited sock puppeteer, Rick Ellison McEllensburg: this is who they are, and this is what they do. Just like I predicted.