bunch of inconsiderate idjits arguing like children…

this is not the PLACE.

ugh.

I am glad that at my suggestion you decided to do a little research and learn about the Joe Biden-Neil Kinnock story. It was quite clear that Wayne was not aware of it prior to my suggestion that he look it up. Otherwise he never would have attempted to argue that the most likely apocryphal story was accurate. I congratulate you on your willingness to learn about things about which you were previously unaware.

As much as you folks might try to obfuscate, the facts are that 1) the story told by Suskind is hearsay, which is not considered as reliable;

2) from one (partisan) source (in contravention of basic journalistic standards which call for at least two sources in such situations);

3) that the one partisan source is a known exaggerator and prevaricator (as I have taught you via the Kinnock incident);

and 4) Lantos never confirmed the alleged incident.

In spite of these undeniable facts, Wayne (amusingly and somewhat desperately) clings to his belief that the tale is true, despite a complete lack of reliable evidence.

I also find it interesting that while Suskind admits that he only had one source (Biden) for the alleged Oval Office conversation (A source that Wayne attempted to hide), Suskind fails to provide any source for the supposed conversation between Lantos and Bush at the White House Christmas Party. What was the source at that conversation, Wayne?

So, as my unassailable recitation of the facts show (as well as your newly discovered information about the Joe Biden-Neil Kinnock incident), the Suskind tale has almost zero support.

As I said, Wayne, next time you attempt to make an assertion, make certain of your facts and consider the source.

Meanwhile, let us remember Rep. Lantos not by the unproven and most likely false words attributed to him by Suskind and Biden and Wayne, let us remember him by his words that are on the public record and undeniably his:

Here’s Rep. Lantos said at the dedication ceremony of the Victims of Communism Memorial last year:

“Communism was not the only monstrous phenomenon determined to destroy free and open societies,” said Lantos, who is chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Lantos, a Holocaust survivor, said he had fought against Nazism and communism, and “it is now my privilege to fight against Islamic terrorism determined to take us back 13 centuries.”

I’d say anyone who reviews the record has got to say that given the evidence, it’s a whole lot likelier that it happened.

It could have been pointed out, when Exley was claiming that Lantos “never confirmed the story” that one could just as truthfully say that Lantos never DENIED the story. But ultimately, I think it was unnecessary, as the troll has crawled back under his bridge for the time being.

If it never did, I would have thought that someone at that meeting would have come forward and said so. That they didn’t, and that many people feel as Tom Lantos did about such conversations, leads me to believe that there is no reason to doubt that the incident took place.

Having said all of that, my point was to provide an example of how Mr. Lantos possessed a tremendous amount of class. Something our conservative detractors lack in abundance.

Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

Thanks, ralph. I appreciate the kind words. And don’t feel bad about calling him “dishonest”. I said he was full of shit. And your excellent anlysis shows that. I had already known about Biden and the Kinnock speech (though I did not know the detail about how the version caught on video was the only time he did not properly attribute it; that sucks.) I admire the way you deconstructed his argument and technique. You do understand how conservatives distort and manipulate the facts in order to make others believe something that is not true. And when you point this out to them, they change the subject and claim that you should have brought up x,y,and z and that because you didn’t, you weren’t being “honest”.

And our friend here deserves the treatment he gets because he is a dishonest debater. He has no proof that the story is not true, so he attacks the people who told it. I have not heard one person deny that this incident ever happened. It’s one thing to refuse to disclose the contents of actual Oval Office discusssions. It’s another thing to deny any such incidents happened. If it never did, I would have thought that at that meeting would have come forward and said so. That they didn’t, and that many people feel as Tom Lantos did about such conversations, leads me to believe that there is no reason to doubt that the incident took place.

Having said all of that, my point was to provide an example of how Mr. Lantos possessed a tremendous amount of class. Something our conservative detractors lack in abundance.

Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

it’s his job, ralph.

what else can he do?

Do you think I hurt Exley’s feelings?

Maybe I shouldn’t have said he was “dishonest”?

Comment by ralph the wonder llama — February 11, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

excellent follow ralph! can you imagine ex-lax looking at both sides of an argument? neither can i.

he’s just not that liberal.

good post ralph, but in dealing with people like ex-lax please remember this; a paid political operative (”troll”) never admits error, fabrication or lying. it’s just not part of the job description. their task is to deny, obfuscate and to spin. and most importantly keep on lying. without lying conservatism would wither on the vine and die. it needs the fresh manure that trolls like ex-lax provide for it.

Comment by Exley — February 11, 2008 @ 3:45 pm

Wrong, Exley.

Susskind is a well-respected journalist who won a Pulitzer while writing for the Wall Street journal — hardly a bastion of leftist thinking, but world-renowned for its reporting excellence. What evidence do you have that he is “unreliable”?

Biden is a long-serving and distinguished Senator. The incident that you embrace in order to charaterize him as “unreliable” is described thusly in wikipedia:

In 1987, Joe Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate. When the campaign began, he was considered a frontrunner because of his moderate image. However, the campaign ended when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party. Though Biden had correctly credited the original author in all speeches but one, the one where he failed to make mention of the originator was caught on video.

Third, as has been pointed out to you several times, the characterization that “Lantos never confirmed Biden’s tale” is dishonest in that you strive deperately to leave the impression that he refused because it was untrue. In fact, Lantos refused to break his longstanding policy of not commenting on oval office meetings. You take an honorable stance of an honorable man and try to use it to impugn the credibility of another dedicated public servant.

You try to spin an extremely ungenerous (more likely mean-spirited) reading of Joe Biden’s single mistake into a blanket condemnation of the man’s character, and as far as I can tell, the only beef you have with Suskind is that he wrote critically about the president.

Based on this collection of delusions, you have attempted to “prove” that the incident never happened, and that Wayne was being dishonest in presenting it.

You are the one who has dropped the ball, Exley. Every move you have made in this argument has been at the very least demeaning to the memory of an excellent gentleman and public service, and at the most has been dishonest.

sorry, ex-lax. you failed to mention that you quoted suskind’s article to try and make your point. you further compounded your error by sanctimoniously telling wayne that you only “use objective, neutral sources of information.” earlier you claimed that suskind was an “anti-Bush journalist.” you belie your own source ex-lax. that’s pretzel logic.

eh?

Pointing out that the messengers (Suskind and Biden) are notoriously unreliable and biased is hardly “smearing.” As I pointed out, even the blogger to whom Wayne linked omitted the fact that Suskind’s only source for this tale was Joe Biden.

I also pointed out the unassailable fact that Rep. Lantos never confirmed Biden’s tale. Bringing all of these facts to light may make you uncomfortable since they utterly undermine the credibility of the tale, but they are facts nonetheless and therefore indisputable.

Your entire critique of his post was to smear the messenger. That’s a typical right-wing tactic that is losing its potency.

Wayne is a good man and a fellow Mets fan. I respect Wayne. He simply dropped the ball here.

Pick your targets a little better next time, Exley. You can’t touch Wayne.

You’re looking kind of silly.