Sunday, November 20, 2005

Did I call it, or did I call it?


You want an apology? Apparently, here's your apology. So, let's recap here, shall we?

Mr. Strong, back here, completely mis-characterized the recent brouhaha in the U.S. House of Representatives, describing it as affirming a "U.S. commitment to Iraq" when, as almost everyone else on the planet noted, it was a case of the House GOP members embarrassing themselves thoroughly.

In case you need it spelled out for you, the Dems put forth a motion for an eventual withdrawal of troops from Iraq, whereas the Republicans, lashing out with the sober judgment of a cornered wolverine, substituted for that a completely ridiculous motion to withdraw all troops immediately, a motion that was absolutely guaranteed to fail and succeeded only in making the GOP House members look like total dimbulbs. And how did Mr. Strong portray what happened?

Why, as you can read, by writing (totally inaccurately as you now realize) that:

Republicans in the US House of Representatives finally had enough of the Democrats' tactics of false claims that "Bush lied" and forced a vote on an issue raised by Pennsylvania Democrat John Murtha calling for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.

I called him on this back here and here, and openly challenged him to retract his claim and correct the record. And his response? Try to believe that he actually wrote the following (emphasis added):

Lost on Mr. Cynic is the fact that I was exactly aware of what was being voted on, having watched it live on television.

Ah. So Mr. Strong knew what was happening, he simply chose to misrepresent it totally, is that what he's saying? So, rather than just being dense, he's openly admitting to being dishonest? This is his defense? Weird.

Mr. Strong further takes exception to my tone of snark, writing:

Because someone else posted a comment here, a critical comment about the same post, but a very civilized comment (note to CC - this is the way to discuss differences of opinion).

Ah, that would be the kind of "civilized comment" that allows Mr. Strong to lie about what actually happened, then go on to refer to "the lies, deception and hypocracy [sic] of the Democrats" as well as describing the party as the "Dummocrats." Civilized, indeed, Mr. Strong. I bow before your superior table manners.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of Mr. Strong's diatribe, except to suggest that, if he doesn't want others to suggest he's a dishonest dumbfuck, perhaps he might stop blogging like one.

Oh, and the bit about my "calling it"? Note carefully in Mr. Strong's entire followup article -- not a hint of correction, retraction or apology for his earlier overwhelming dishonesty. Quelle surprise.

We're not done here.

AFTERSNARK: It is amusing to see Mr. Strong suggest that it might be more productive if I were to be more civilized in my discourse, when he writes:

Because someone else posted a comment here, a critical comment about the same post, but a very civilized comment (note to CC - this is the way to discuss differences of opinion).

Ah, so we might have resolved this if I had been more genteel, is that it? That's easy enough to test, isn't it? Let's return to Mr. Strong's original dishonest posting here, where we can read (at the moment) two comments, both of which are relatively low-key but still calling out Mr. Strong on his inaccuracy. And what reaction does this get from Mr. Strong?

Nothing. Nada. Zip. Sweet fuck all.

So, apparently, being polite and civilized really doesn't accomplish anything when dealing with Mr. Strong, does it? So we won't be using that strategy any time soon. I'm sure you understand why.

BY THE WAY: If you got seriously grossed out about the kidneys and pissing blood reference, you clearly aren't Hunter S. Thompson fans:

They would place me under arrest, then routinely search the car - and when that happened all kinds of savage hell would break loose. They would never believe all these drugs were necessary to my work; that in truth I was a professional journalist on my way to Las Vegas to cover the National District Attorneys� Conference on Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

Just samples, officer. I got this stuff off a road man for the Neo - American Church back in Barstow. He started acting funny, so I worked him over.

Would they buy this?

No. They would lock me in some hellhole of a jail and beat me on the kidneys with big branches - causing me to piss blood for years to come.

I really do have to explain everything to some of you folks, don't I? I could apologize for it, or I could just invoke the Bill O'Reilly defense -- "Hey, it was just a 'satirical riff', I didn't really mean it, ya know?"

Apparently, in the right-wing wankersphere, you never really have to apologize for anything. Just say you were joking, and that fixes everything. Or so I've heard.

THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING: It's not like I need to beat up on Mr. Strong any more than I already have but there's one more point worth making. In his latest piece, Mr. Strong writes:

Odd. Mr. Cynic made these two posts about me, demanded an apology and then stated that in a day or two he will know whether or not I am man enough to come clean. You think that Mr. Cynic might have contacted me directly about this, but no. Just a couple of posts on his obscure little blog. Maybe he's hoping I won't notice.

Hoping he won't notice? No, I was pretty sure he'd notice, given that most bloggers check their referral lists regularly so I'm not sure what he's getting at. But let's be clear -- getting some sort of correction or retraction from Mr. Strong had nothing whatsoever to do with him eventually noticing what I had written.

At the time of my first post, he already had the first comment from PB's Scott Tribe, which read as follows:

This is as disingenuous a post as I've read on the Blogosphere anywhere on this topic Bill.. you should be ashamed of yourself for posting it.

The House didnt vote on the actual Murtha Resolution.. they voted on a GOP rewrite of the resolution designed for nothing more then political grandstanding... and they got slammed for it all over the place.

So Mr. Strong already knew he screwed the pooch before I wrote anything about it. Whether he 'fesses up to his dishonesty had nothing to do with whether he ever read my "obscure little blog" (which, I might point out, gets three times the daily traffic his does, but it's not like I'm bragging or anything).

In any event, Mr. Strong's honesty doesn't depend on me in any way. He'd been told he fucked up before I came along; now let's see if he does anything about it. So far, he's had time to read those original comments, read what I wrote and write a lengthy rebuttal to me. All without admitting any error on his part.

Like I wrote before ... I called it, didn't I?

2 comments:

Robert McClelland said...

It is amusing to see Mr. Strong suggest that it might be more productive if I were to be more civilized in my discourse,

It astounds me that these fucktards have the audacity to say we should be more civilized when we're calling them on their lies. I say fuck them. I don't in any way feel the need to be civilized to people who lie about everything all the time.

BBS said...

Coming from the head 'fucktard', that's almost like a compliment