Work on "think"

Hey - I'm a conservative this week!

But later on Fox, New York Post columnist Ralph Peters attacked Smith and Herridge for claiming that the shooting “validated” the DHS report.

Though some conservatives have concluded that the recent string of right-wing violence has “vindicated” the DHS report, many others agree with Peters. Michelle Malkin, who led the charge against the DHS report, approvingly linked to a milblogger that called Smith and Herridge “pathetic” for reconsidering the report. Malkin’s Hot Air colleague, Ed Morrissey, defends the criticism of the report by claiming that it didn’t “mention anti-semitism at all.”

A biography of Brunn posted on the site says he is a World War II veteran who served time in federal prison for trying to make a "citizens arrest" of Federal Reserve Board members in 1981.

If that's all on which Smith and Herridge are basing their claims of vindication regarding the veteran threat, they're pathetic.

Neil, I gotta say something. On Fox News of all places in the last hour I heard that this tragic incident at the Holocaust Museum somehow validates the disgraceful report from the Department of Homeland Security warning about a terror threat from our returning veterans from Iraq or Afghanistan. Neil, this guy served in World War Two. He's been out of the military 64 years.

Then again - Michelle Malkin linked me! She's conservative, ergo so am I. But wait! The quote I opened this entry with, wherein I am linked twice, is from Think Progress, obviously a "progressive" web site, so I must be a "progressive" too...

Wait a minute! - I very specifically called Smith and Herridge pathetic for claiming vindication on a very specific claim about Iraq and Afghan vets on the actions of a (then-alleged) WWII vet - and not, per Think Progress, for their 'reconsidering the report'. And so did Peters! If that wasn't clear enough, I reiterated it with even more detail after actually quoting the DHS report in my post: "Smith and Herridge know they're talking about a guy who claims to be an 89-year old WWII veteran. Unless he crashed a PT boat through the front doors of the Holocaust Museum, any military training from back in '42 was not a factor." In fact, never in the entire piece did I take issue with the accuracy of the report itself. In fact, outside the direct quote from the DHS report (which I didn't refute) contained in my post I never even used "Right" Left" "Conservative" "Liberal" "Republican" "Democrat" -- or any of the many other terms that my post wasn't about. I even warned people not to assume they knew what I thought of the DHS report. Later, in comments, I pointed out a similar interpretation error made by a mistaken commenter and he or she apologized, as did I for my over-sensitive response.

So how did the folks at Think Progress get it so wrong? Do you suppose it's possible that they didn't even read my post? Or that they did but couldn't understand my concrete terminology?...

Wait - it gets better! I scrolled through the 75 comments currently at the Think Progress post to see if any one of the 30 people who bothered to follow those links over here and actually read my work for themselves had corrected. No again! (But there are several sneering at all the conservatives/Right Wingers who've never even read the DHS report!!!...) As far as I can tell, at Think Progress they're all "progress" and zero "think".

Aha! I must be conservative because now I've indiscriminately criticized "progressives" for believing anything they're told! But that's wrong again - because here's Mahablog (who I've linked previously on one of my defenses of President Obama - gasp!). They understood and concur with my point exactly (even though they see me as a right-wing blogger). And here's my old friend (I mean that) The Gun Toting Liberal who links to my follow-on post where I point out that with one exception no one deserves to be linked to this alleged J-school grad who (like John F Kennedy) was a PT boat captain in WWII. Here's the tricky, confusing way I worded that:

...no one (other than fellow Nazis - and some of them will probably deny him) deserves to be associated with this sumbitch. In his 90 years on this earth (which he probably wanted to end guns blazing) this dirt bag probably did many things (including - like Hitler - "art") - most of which neither define him or reflect on others who did - or do - those things.

In a moment of sublime synchronicity, two days before the shooting I had written this comment on another post:

RAH
Something to ponder: Is an organization "liberal" if it's employees must fear veering from an rigid orthodoxy?

Even the people Rush Limbaugh calls "liberal" prefer to be called "progressive" now. ( I prefer "Leftist" but that's inadequate too.) One can dislike the direction in which they want to "progress", but it's more appropriate than Liberal, which absolutely doesn't fit the unquestioning acceptance of approved dogma that membership in the club requires.

As for the Leftist sobriquet, I consider that misleading because from my point of view they - like extreme Right Wing ideologues, share one end of a spectrum with me in the middle and anarchists on the other end. Maybe my group should be called the "tolerants". (It's tough to get us to impose our beliefs on others though...)

Anyhow, your comment got me thinking about that. Thanks.

Another change in Party Affiliation

- via email, facebook, twitter, etc.