How The Fluffersphere Works

How things get ‘proven’ in Greater Wingnuttia:

1.) Wingnut #1 asserts that the NY Times gave MoveOn a super-sweet deal on the ad because they hate America, and not out of general business practices.
2.) Wingnut #2 repeats the claim, links to wingnut #1, and goes on a rant about the perfidy of the NY Times, to include a link to the NY Times stock performance in 2006.
3.) Wingnut #3 links to wingnut #2, and states:

Having done its best for the past four years to undermine the war effort, disrupt national security, aid and abet our enemies, and provide comfort to terrorists, the New York Times has now gone one step further in its efforts to undermine the war.

Newsbusters is reporting that was given a discount from the New York Times for its anti-Petraeus advertisement. Mind you, it received the political advertising discount that every political advertiser gets, but received an additional $102,000.00 discount.

Verdict: PROOF the NY Times hates America. No one, of course, has examined NY Times past rates, no one has asked the NY Times for their input. Doesn’t matter- we have three links! IT IS FACT.

FYI- Pariser of MoveOn stated, on Hardball, that the ad cost “about 70k.” Tapper reports it was approximately 65k. Now I don’t know about you, but 65k is not “about 70k” in my book. I smell a CONspiracy. Someone better get to the bottom of this, because that 5k discrepancy is important. I am guessing the NY Times overcharged them, and then spent the five thousand off the books on hair dye for Osama’s beard so he looked good in his latest video. Or maybe they funded some underage abortions. Who knows? With the NY Times, anything is possible!

*** Update ***

And now Rush Limbaugh and the NY Post are in the act. Any truth to the matter- well, we still don’t know, no one has actually investigated, but repeat something often enough and it is fact! Add fact-free McQ to the mix.

Is one person going to actually investigate this- like, for example, ask about NY Times normal business practices? Sniff around and find out what other people actually pay, rather than the list price? Maybe ask Ari Fleischer or his group what they paid? or is it just FACT because enough droolers repeated it?

Here We Go Again

That deep-thinker Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard thinks he has the Leftards foiled again:

But the key point for these folks prior to the hearings was that Petraeus was merely a White House stooge, a politicized general spewing the administration’s talking points. Now that he shows up and behaves exactly as a general should–no opinion on the policy, serious analysis of tactics and strategy–they act as though Petraeus has admitted he doesn’t believe in this war.

You can’t have it both ways. Which is exactly what Fred Kagan explained over the weekend at NRO–commanders in the field have one job: win the war. Their job is not to question the policy and its broader implications, just to win the war.

And how would these folks respond if Petraeus had given some impassioned speech about how Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here, etc. etc.? Instead he acts like a professional, and responds to the question from Warner:

“I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind.”

The left should be lauding him for this–he diplomatically extricated himself from a question that would have required him to sell the policy of war in Iraq. He balks, and he gets attacked anyway–now he’s not a true believer. Petraeus responded to this question exactly as he should have.

ProTip: If you are four+ years into a war, and it is, at that point, STILL a legitimate question for a Senator to ask whether the war makes us safer, and if you have to ask in the first place, AND THE TOP GENERAL RUNNING THE WAR CAN NOT IMMEDIATELY SAY YES, you have a problem.

Bonus fun: the title of the post by Goldfarb is “Petraeus Shouldn’t Know if Iraq Makes Us Safer.”

Screw it. On to Iran, amirite?

9/11 As Political Prop

Michelle, at her best/worst, in her 9/11 “remembrance”:

But remembrance without resistance to jihad and its enablers is a recipe for another 9/11. This is what fueled my first two books, on immigration enforcement and profiling. This is what fuels much of the work on this blog and at Hot Air. Not every American wears a military uniform. But every American has a role to play in protecting our homeland–not just from Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies.

The Left greets such a commitment with mockery and derision, preferring instead to suck its collective thumb, play the grievance card, and engage in hindsight hypocrisy.

ARISE! ARISE, WINGNUTTOSPHERE! YOU HAVE YOUR ENEMIES LIST! Go out and protect your homeland from the “Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies.” Because if you don’t, you sure are going to look stupid in a Burkha!

Personally, I am so glad we have Michelle Malkin out there profiling people to keep us all safe. Although, I might add, if she wraps herself up any tighter in the flag, she might suffocate.

(BTW- New Category)