January 30, 2007Stupid lies about the ClintonsWith Hillary throwing her hat in the 2008 ring, folks are dusting off the old lies about the Clintons and passing them around the Internets again. I've gotten this one twice already today from well-meaning right-wing correspondents: This is what happens when you have dirt on the Clintons : 1 - James McDougal - Clinton 's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation. 2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House. It goes on, and on, and on, to list about 47 Clinton "associates" who met untimely ends. But snopes.com, a well-respected nonpartisan Web site devoted to debunking urban myths, calls the e-mail complete bunk: We shouldn't have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap, but we will anyway. In a frenzied media climate where the Chief Executive couldn't boff a White House intern without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office, are we seriously to believe the same man had been having double handfuls of detractors and former friends murdered with impunity? Don't be swayed by the number of names listed on screeds like this. Any public figure is bound to have a much wider circle of acquaintance than an ordinary citizen would. Moreover, the acquaintance is often one-sided It's worth perusing the entire entry just to see how badly most of these incidents are distorted. |
.....Advertisement.....
|
...Advertisement...
...Advertisement...
Comments
[January 30, 2007 2:46 PM]
AnonymousLets just forget all of the supposed lies and focus on what we know as the truth. When a man stoops as low as President Clinton did and abused his power and our White House and has a wife who stands by him how do we have any respect for either. When ask How she would handle a evil bad man such as Sadam she replied who has as much experience with men such as she does. That is the problem she did nothing but hold hands and stand by her man as she said the country song suggested and she was opposed to that. She cannot handle such men as she is a power hungery female. By the way I am a female so this is not some male that is unhappy
[January 30, 2007 9:06 PM]
JoshYeah, instead of the conspiracy stuff, it would be easier to focus on the 14 convictions netted in the Whitewater investigation. Hmm. That tops the Bush administration's convictions by, uh, 14.
Now which was the corrupt one again?
[January 31, 2007 8:00 AM]
james... without the whole world finding out every niggling detail of each encounter and demanding his removal from office,
Snopes is engaging in some bunk of its own here. Most of the world just looked on with interest while our president revealed his weakness, frivolity and lack of character.
[January 31, 2007 11:22 AM]
JoshBTW, Snopes is considered by many to be left-leaning. It seems to devote an awful lot of attention on 'urban legends' critical of liberals. To call it a 'widely respected' site is a stretch, unless you mean 'widely respected' by the mainstream media, which says a lot about it's credibility right there.
[January 31, 2007 1:47 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
Do you have any source for your slander against snopes, or are we just supposed to buy it? I've seen them rebut liberal urban legends and confirm stories critical of liberals.
It is an extremely credible source. You, in fact, are the first person anywhere I've seen question their credibility.
[January 31, 2007 7:32 PM]
JoshJohn Berlau wrote a piece for the highly respected Insight Magazine, detailing liberal bias of SNOPES and proprietor, Barbara Mikkelson.
As I am not a subscriber of Insight, I wasn't able to get the full article there, but I found a reproduction of it at Free Republic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968235/posts
[January 31, 2007 7:57 PM]
Dan RadmacherThe "highly respected" Insight magazine? C'mon, Josh. That's the rag that just ran a thoroughly debunked on Barack Obama falsely claiming he was raised Muslim and attend a Madrassa as a child.
CNN actually visited the school and found it was not a radical Muslim school.
Sounds to me like Insight has gotten called on the carpet by Snopes for perpetuating conservative urban legends, so Insight attempted to discredit them.
Not the most credible source you could come up with, Josh.
[January 31, 2007 8:33 PM]
JoshSo you're saying all the contentions by the author are false because you don't like the publication it was in?
OK, well, next time you use a New York Times source, we'll discount it because Jayson Blair made up stories. Next time you link to a Washington Post article, we'll dismiss it because of the Janice Cooke fabrications.
You asked for a source, I provided it. If you can debunk the author's claims, do it.
[January 31, 2007 8:45 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
There's not much there to debunk. Looks to me like most of the issues were judgment calls - and the main one didn't even have anything to do with liberal bias that I could see.
But what I find amusing about this is you are the one who first attacked a source because of an alleged bias - but did nothing to debunk the source's claims.
Can you find any claims in the Snopes article I cited that you can debunk?
[January 31, 2007 9:06 PM]
ChrisI agree with your anonymous writer. Why worry about the alleged smear campaign. We don't need to worry about lies about the Clintons. We should be more worried about the lies told by the Clintons.
Again, I am baffled by the hypocrisy. It seems as though there is an editorial almost daily calling for the impeachment of President Bush for lying to the American people, yet the same folks say we should either ignore, forgive or forget the lies Bill Clinton told, both to the American people and under oath, because they weren't about something "important."
I mean the whole WMD debacle was at least supposedly based on faulty intelligence that fooled many people and it is at least debatable if that argument was deliberate deception on the part of President Bush, or if he was also fooled like everyone else. After all, it seems that the media's favorite slam against this President is that he's not too smart, so it stands to reason that he could have been deceived by the faulty intelligence. However, there is no question that every liberal's hero, President Clinton deliberately lied directly to the American people and under oath in a Congressional inquiry. So again, I'm just troubled by the hypocrisy inherent in the position that it is okay for one President to lie, but not another. Fortunately, I'm able to take comfort in a the words of no other than William Jefferson Clinton himself.
"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign."
- Bill Clinton July, 1974
[January 31, 2007 11:08 PM]
JoshDan,
The big difference Mikkelson IS Snopes, and has been shown to exhibit a double standard, but Berlau is merely a contributor to Insight. You may not like Insight, but what does that have to do with Berlau? Do you have any evidence that he has demonstrated a double standard?
[February 1, 2007 8:37 AM]
Dan RadmacherNo, Josh. Mikkelson has not been shown to exhibit a double standard. Some of the people she's debunked have alleged, but not proven, a double standard.
Berlau works for Insight, Josh. That's all I know about him. You're the one who claimed Insight was well-respected. I merely pointed out that any respect they may have gained was eroded by their phony hit piece on Barack Obama.
Now, can you debunk anything that Mikkelson actually said in the post I cited? Or do you want to just keep trying to smear her with vague allegations?
[February 1, 2007 11:34 AM]
JoshDan,
You can't even get the Insight piece right. Insight didn't say Obama was educated in a Muslim school; they said that information came from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Hillary's people deny it. (Surprise, surprise) but Insight stands by the story.
So your slander against Insight has been debunked. CNN didn't bust Insight; it busted the story that was attributed to Clinton. That's really professional journalism on your part, Dan.
OK, so that takes away your thunder against Berlau's credibility. He demonstrated Mikkelson's bias pretty convincingly. And as I said, when your only business is discerning spin from truth, as Snopes' allegedly is, then when you're shown to be biased, it undermines every claim you make.
I think you owe Insight an apology, Dan.
[February 1, 2007 11:46 AM]
Dan RadmacherWrong again, Josh.
From the Insight piece I linked:
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia.
Clearly, Insight presented it as fact. And it was fiction. Not to mention, they used only anonymous sources for their slander.
I owe Insight no apology. Insight owes Barack Obama an apology.
And Berlau may have convinced you, Josh, but that's all.
In my last post, I asked, "Now, can you debunk anything that Mikkelson actually said in the post I cited? Or do you want to just keep trying to smear her with vague allegations?"
I see you went with option 2.
[February 1, 2007 12:15 PM]
JoshHow can someone report something as fact when they attribute it to sources? Your complaint makes no sense.
And are you telling me someone in your profession has never heard of anonymous sources being used? It's done all the time.
As for the Snopes thing on Clinton, I am not an investigator, so I have no idea if her debunking is correct or not. But I do know Mikkelson's political bias has been outed pretty convincingly, so it does cast doubt on all her assertions.
You need to apologize to Insight.
[February 1, 2007 12:39 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
Look at the wording of the paragraph I quoted. Does it say, "political opponents allege" Obama attended a madrassa? No. It says they "discovered" he attended a madrassa.
See the difference between reporting something as fact and attributing it to sources?
Yes, anonymous sources are used all the time. But they are rarely the sole source - and when they are, the public is right to be skeptical.
And, finally: No, Mikkelson's political bias has not been outed convincingly. Repeating the assertion that it has won't make it fact.
Here are a quick list of a few posts I found where snopes.com rebuts false rumors about Bush:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/bush.htm
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushbook.asp
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.htm
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/medicare.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/fetal.asp
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
Here are a few where Snopes dings the Clintons:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/hillary.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
So, Josh, I think it's clear: I don't owe an apology to Insight. You do owe an apology to Snopes.
[February 1, 2007 2:33 PM]
GregJust wanted to interject each one of these story's has a piece of evidence that just doesn't fit.
Here are just a few if you would like them all let me know
mary mahony http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/3450/otherintern.html
Vince Foster http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/SUICIDE/suicide.html
Ron Brown http://www.dickgregory.com/dick/7_ronbrown.html
and lets not forget about
Sandy Berger and the oops the missing Bill Clintons Docs?
Now how do suppose the Media would of reacted if the shoe were on the other foot and they were Bush's Docs that just vanished, a little food for thought....
Have fun defending honest Bill...
[February 1, 2007 4:18 PM]
JoshDan,
The Insight article included NINE different references to its sources. I have no idea what you are talking about in saying the allegations weren't sourced. This slander is getting worse and worse, and you are starting to look silly.
[February 1, 2007 4:36 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
And all those sources were anonymous. And in all cases, the allegations were treated as fact, not allegations by sources.
Someone's looking silly here.
It isn't me.
[February 1, 2007 7:56 PM]
JoshUh, I can't believe I'm having to explain this to a journalist. A day doesn't go by in which anonymous sources aren't used.
"Speaking on the condition of anonymity, such-and-such said...."
"A source close to the situation said..."
Isn't there always discussion about journalists not divulging their sources? Why did Judith Miller of the NYT serve prison time?
Insight acknowledged a source nine times in its article.
I can't imagine what the difficulty in understand this is.
[February 1, 2007 8:13 PM]
Dan RadmacherJosh,
I will attempt to explain this one more time, and only one more time: Use of anonymous sources is sometimes necessary in journalism.
HOWEVER, if a story contains ONLY anonymous sources, then there is NO WAY to ascertain the reliability of the story.
Very few mainstream news articles contain only anonymous sources. The public is correct to look at such stories with some measure of skepticism.
But however many times Insight cited its anonymous source is absolutely irrelevant. The fact remains that Insight referred to the allegations of its anonymous sources as FACTS, not allegations.
And the fact remains that those allegations were FALSE.
Therefore, Insight practiced shoddy journalism. Insight owes Sen. Obama an apology.
If you can't understand that, then I am finished with this conversation.
Thank you.
[February 2, 2007 12:01 AM]
JoshBlack is white according to Dan. Of the 25 paragraphs in the article, in every one in which a claim is made about the madrassa, the source is is referenced in that same paragraph, including twice in the paragraph you provided. It is crystal clear the story is coming from Insight's source and not an Insight reporter.
This has gotten so embarrassing even your reliable shoulder parrot, Christian, isn't helping you out.
[February 2, 2007 12:23 AM]
StevenJosh and Dan--I think we also have to question CNN's reliability. Weren't they the one who reported Saddam being reelected with 100% of the vote without questioning that improbably claim? Then later didn't it come out that Saddam's thugs were taking CNN reporters out to the desert and beating the hell out of them if they didn't report to the State's liking? Do we really know they sent a reporter to Obama's home school? Do we really know that school still operates the same as it did 35 years ago? Since we are saying everyone isn't credible because of something they got wrong once Id say CNN deserves the same treatment.
[February 2, 2007 8:57 AM]
JoshSteve,
That's a great point. If CNN says it, we still don't know if it's right.
I find it comical these Roanoke Times guys treat questionable MSM sources as definitive arbiters of the truth while CNN, CBS, USA Today, The Washington Post, and the New York Times have all perpetrated major scandals involving fraudulent reporting.
[February 11, 2007 1:57 PM]
Mark WilsonI find it very sad the lengths some will go to defend the indefensible...IE, the Clintons. I also find it funny that the very ones crying about Insight MAG treat CNN and the NYT's like Christians treat the bible.
Hypocrisy is the number one requirement to become a liberal. The second requirement is to check your common sense in at the door.