Wednesday, March 09, 2005

And even MORE bogus right-wing "persecution".


Recall, if you will, the story of poor, downtrodden college Republican Ahmad Al-Qloushi, whose tearful saga of persecution at the hands of those evil, left-wing academics turned out to be total bullshit.

Well, they're baaaaaack.
Posted by at

5 comments:

Jay McHue said...

Oh, I see. "Unsubstantiated Horowitz tale" = not to be believed. Unsubstantiated ex-marine tale = believe every last bit of it (just because it bashes America, her troops and President Bush).

Hypocrite. Keep trying to have it both ways, CC. It's hilarious!

7:40 PM
CC said...

(I can't believe I'm about to do this, but I think there's going to be some intellectual value. I can always hope.)

PART 1:

As I've written before, there's an absolutely classic scene in one of my favourite movies "My Cousin Vinny", where the lawyer played by Joe Pesci is making his first appearance before the country (but very savvy) judge, played by the late Fred Gwynne. (And if you've never seen this flick, your life is not yet complete.)

As it is the first meeting, Gwynne casually asks Pesci for a plea for his two clients. Rather than simply give a plea, Pesci launches into an oratory about how this is unfair and so on. Gwynne, looking a little puzzled, eventually cuts him off and repeats that he just wants a plea. Guilty or not guilty?

Pesci again waxes eloquent about the legal system and other stuff and, once again, Gwynne cuts him off. After a few more of these exchanges, Gwynne finally lays down the rules. He wants a plea. Nothing else. The very next words out of Pesci's mouth had better be either "Guilty" or "Not guilty". That's it. Period. Let's remember this story for what's about to follow.

Now, in commenting on my article regarding the lying sack of monkey barf that is right-wing sleazebag David Horowitz, "Jinx McHue" actually avoids any mention whatsoever of Horowitz's dishonesty. No surprise there, since this is McHue's standard operating procedure -- he carefully avoids indisputable evidence of obvious conservative fraud, changing the subject whenever he gets the chance. ("David Horowitz a liar? Uh ... um ... hey, look at the bright shiny thing over there!")

... To be continued shortly ...

6:38 AM
CC said...

PART 2:

Note that, rather than discuss my accusations about Horowitz, McHue tries to distract everyone by referring to a different post. Apparently, in McHue's mind, if he can discredit a totally unrelated article of mine, he has no need to reply to this one. (Regular readers will, of course, recognize this as McHue's typical behaviour.)

Now, apparently, there is some controversy about the actual circumstances of Saddam Hussein's arrest, as you're welcome to read here.

If, in fact, it turns out that I was wrong, I will correct the record publicly on my blog (a concept with which I'm confident McHue is wholly unfamiliar -- I'm still waiting for an apology for his accusing me of describing blogger Instapundit as a "Republican" when I said he was "right wing". Ah, but such distinctions are clearly lost on McHue.)

But it's not as if we don't have good reason to be suspicious of practically everything coming out of this administration. How many lies have we already heard regarding Iraq? Behind the 9/11 attack? Not true. Massive stockpiles of WMDs? Not there. Association with al-Qaeda? Non-existent. The valiant heroism of Jessica Lynch? Fiction. And on and on and on. Can you blame anyone for hearing about yet another lie and thinking, "Yeah, what else is new?"

And it's not like there isn't enough controversy already regarding Saddam's arrest. Let me refer you here and here. Just food for thought, you can make of those what you will.

So here's a suggestion -- let's step back and wait to see how this shakes out. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. And if it turns out McHue is wrong, well, I think you all know what's going to happen. Dead silence, followed by, "Hey, look, over there! Another shiny thing!"

But I'm not done yet.

... To be concluded shortly ...

6:55 AM
CC said...

PART 3:

So, now what? Well, here's how it's going to work.

As I've already pointed out, McHue chose to respond to my posting on David Horowitz with criticism of a totally-unrelated article, pretty much par for the course for McHue. So here's my suggestion.

If McHue wants to argue about the circumstances of Saddam's arrest, he's more than welcome to do that over here, in the appropriate place (as you will notice he's already done). which brings us full circle to Fred Gwynne and Joe Pesci.

If McHue wants to respond to all of the above, well, since this article was about David Horowitz's dishonesty, I want him to write about Horowitz. And nothing else.

I want him to address, and address only, the topic of my post: David Horowitz. I don't want to hear about Saddam Hussein, or goalposts, or changing subjects, or how McHue is (once again) laughing his ass off, or whatever.

The topic here is the apparently bogus story of anti-conservative bias that is being spread by Horowitz these days, and I'd like McHue to, for once, focus on that topic and respond to it, to the exclusion of all else.

In the tradition of Fred Gwynne, I'm challenging McHue -- all I want out of him is his defense of David Horowitz. That's it. Nothing else. The next words I want to see from McHue in this comments section should talk about Horowitz, and only David Horowitz. If he thinks Horowitz's story is legit, I want to see substantiating evidence.

And at this point, it's now up to McHue. As his very next comment (and I mean that literally, his absolutely very next comment), he can either address the David Horowitz issue. Or he can dodge, weave, shuffle and tap dance, and point at more shiny things to distract us.

So, let's sit back and see what happens. To paraphrase Gwynne, "All I want from you, as your very next comment, is a defense of Horowitz. Absolutely nothing else."

At this point, everything is riding on McHue's next comment. I'm waiting.

7:20 AM
CC said...

Hmmmm ... and a suspicious silence from Mr. McHue. That's all right, I'm sure he's just heavily involved in research on David Horowitz. I'm happy to give McHue the benefit of the doubt because, hey, that's just the kind of guy I am.

3:53 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)