|
|
|
|
February 07, 2008
"Someone has to take out the garbage"
I didn't expect to see the type of paranoid conspiracy nonsense that I remember from the 2000 smear campaign against McCain resurfacing in the blogosphere, but it has. I'm sorry to see that unsourced, unsubstantiated trashy gossip is being taken seriously, but I guess that's what happens when a "respectable" online news source like WorldNetDaily (yes, I'm being sarcastic) picks it up and treats it as news: They [apparently a "small group of GOP senators and congressmen"] have been having discussions with a Russian whom we'll call "T" for translator. T's father was the Soviet military intelligence officer who ran the "Hanoi Hilton" prison holding captured Americans during the Vietnam War. One of those prisoners was John McCain.According to "T," McCain only pretended on occasion to be a prisoner during his captivity, but he actually lived high on the hog with a couple of Vietnamese prostitutes in an apartment. And Bill Clinton, working for the CIA since 1968, knows all about this, and he has the documents and the Clintons are going to release them at just the right time but Ann Coulter is really good and we should vote for Hillary if Romney doesn't win. Sigh. It's a long piece, but that's my best attempt to summarize it. There's simply nothing there. Unless you believe in the story of "T" -- the secret weapon the Clintons are going to use to derail McCain. (But isn't McCain a commie liberal hell-bent on ruining America and no different from the Clintons? Why go to all this trouble?) Some bloggers (and no, I will not name them) are taking this more seriously than others who (fortunately) realize that a better role for bloggers is in debunking as opposed to promoting unverified nonsense. I like Ed Morrissey's take (bear in mind he's a Romney supporter): Wheeler doesn't actually produce any evidence, documentary or testimonial. Conveniently, Wheeler says the CIA has it hidden. That doesn't keep him from dropping this turd in the middle of the primary punch bowl. And this: Pathetic. Disgusting. Rancid. Gutless. He'll throw the mud, but he won't give the evidence. What a revolting piece of work Wheeler is. This kind of character assassination should have no place in politics, and the only evidence it provides is that of Wheeler's moral derangement.The whole thing is a rehash of 2000, and the same people are probably behind it. It is no accident that the stuff is unsourced and unverifiable. That makes it much harder if not impossible to refute. The burden ought to be on this "Dr. Jack Wheeler" nutjob to prove what he says, but I'm sure he won't. It's more fun to circulate unprovable theories that only secret government agents and double agents know but won't tell! Just ask them! They won't talk! Or they'll deny it! (Just like Roswell. The Chemtrailers! The 911 impoders! The Bilderbergers, the Skull and Bones, and the Masons!) McCain made a secret deal with the North Vietnamese Communists way back when, to take over this country, and it's about to happen! The only way to stop him now is to vote for Hillary! Sometimes it takes Communism to defeat Communism. This is satire, right? UPDATE: Commenter Alphie says it it is possible to criticize the smears without repeating or linking to them. He's right, except it should be borne in mind that I barely quoted this nonsense, and merely summarized it. Nor did I provide links to the bloggers who circulated it uncritically. My real quarrel here is with WorldNetDaily and the gang of paranoid conspiracy theorists who always seem to get a pass, and continue to crank out stuff that no reasonable person should take seriously. No matter how outrageous their claims, they're still considered "respectable," and there are bloggers who -- whether through naivite or simply because they find it emotionally pleasing -- will link to it and accept it as "news." One of the reasons I think this happens -- and the main reason I took the time last night to write this post -- is that if I didn't say anything, they'd be getting a pass from me! And if I hadn't related the substance of the charge, it would be more difficult for people to understand the seriously irresponsible, dangerously wacko nature of it. Were John McCain not a public person, he could sue WorldNetDaily and end up owning the damned outfit. This is not the first time, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Seriously, I am sick and tired of my own tendency to pull punches with the creepily hegemonic WND. I hesitate, and the reason I hesitate is that (much to my chagrin) they employ and work with some people I respect. It pains me to do this. It really does. But I agree that someone has to take out the garbage, and this is big time garbage. Had it been a case of an over-wrought, hyperbole-driven blogger circulating an anonymous email, I wouldn't have bothered. UPDATE: Sebastian of Snowflakes in Hell points to an damningly thorough article by James H. Warner -- a fellow prisoner with McCain (and not a McCain supporter, BTW) which refutes the baseless allegations point by point: Recently, I have seen several allegations that condemn Senator John McCain for his behavior as a prisoner of war. I believe that these allegations are false. I am in a better position than the Senator's accusers to know the truth since I was a prisoner with him, having been captured a little over a month before him. I have contacted hundreds of my comrades on our e-mail list and not one of them can confirm anything that has been alleged against McCain.Read it all. The paranoid WND crowd ought to be ashamed of themselves, but I'm sure they aren't. posted by Eric on 02.07.08 at 12:11 AM
Comments
Thanks Alphie. I tried to address your criticism. It'd a bit of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Ignoring this garbage does not make it go away, and I fear that if I didn't spell it out, people would not understand the nature of the perfidy. But there's little I can do. We have the First Amendment, and circulating anonymous lies is permitted as it should be. My argument is with the laundering of them by outfits considered respectable by people who should know better but look the other way. I've held my tongue countless times, but I refuse to look the other way on this one. No good will come of any of this, I'm afraid. At least I'm on record as being against it, and my conscience can sleep better. Eric Scheie · February 7, 2008 08:26 AM So does this mean we should spread the rumor that WorldNetDaily is uncritically repeating KGB disinformation sent to it by the Clinton campaign? Anthony · February 7, 2008 11:24 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
February 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Destroy the dream in order to save it?
Selective veiling of free speech? some bigots are more equal P0rn0graphy At War "repetitive, personal, virulent attacks" Think About Christmas And Dating John McCain, consider yourself endorsed here! Listening for conservative sounds Is Romney quitting? Hsurely, they'll be wearing out some hsu leather over this!
Links
Site Credits
|
|
It is possible to criticize the smears without repeating them.
Or linking to them.
Really, it is.