October 03, 2002
The Sawicky Challenge

Max Sawicky of MaxSpeak alleges a double standard among 'warbloggers':

A couple of Congressmen go to Iraq and urge a variety of measures short of war to discipline the Iraqi dictator. Terrorists kidnap a CIA station chief and other Americans in 1984, and Ollie North responds by providing arms to the sponsors of the deed. Warblogger responses: about the Members of Congress, go ape-shit; for Ollie, hail him as an American hero.

I have a rather obvious question. When was the last time a warblogger 'hailed' Oliver North "as an American hero"? I would like a link or two or preferably three. And even three or more would not suffice to make Sawicky's case, since I easily found links illustrating warbloggers' lack of adulation for North. Try this one, for instance, in which Cointelprotool quotes without comment William Saletan of Slate essentially calling North a liar, or this one, in which Happy Fun Pundit criticizes North because he was still whining about Bill Clinton and Joycelyn Elders last January. Most warbloggers go for months at a time without even mentioning North, and references to him are at least as likely to be critical as not. Some of us have never mentioned him at all. (Before now, I mean.) Does Max Sawicky think it is fair or honest to depict us generally as big fans?

If Sawicky can't provide some links to actual warbloggers expressing admiration or (better) adulation for Oliver North, I'm going to have to conclude that he just makes shit up. Of course, evidence from relatively well-known warbloggers will be far more convincing than quoting someone the rest of us have never heard of. (As a rule of thumb, I think it would be fair to define warbloggers as 'well-known' if they make the 'Top 500' linked-to list in the Myelin Blogging Ecosystem.)

By the way, this is the same Max Sawicky who accuses "right-wing bloggers" (no names given) of "lying through their teeth" about Bonior and McDermott in Iraq and writes that Peter Beinart in NRO "simplifies an imaginary left argument in order to debunk it". It seems to me that Sawicky is in no position to cast stones, still less to make sneering remarks like "reading NRO is like watching a succession of turds floating downstream". Note that all of my Sawicky quotations are from the last day and a half. If he's too busy to do the research necessary to get things right, perhaps he should refrain from posting some of the things he posts.

Update: (10/5, 11:30 PM)

Sawicky has now promised to try to back up his statement, and someone named Eric M. (no e-mail or web-page given) has attempted to do so in his comments section. The evidence offered so far is remarkably thin, and comes mixed with random sneers and attempts to change the subject.

Update: (10/6, 3:42 PM)

Sawicky has finally attempted to back up his statement, and to shut off discussion before it even starts. My reply to his latest is here.

Posted by Dr. Weevil at October 03, 2002 10:11 PM

"Imaginary argument?" Sawicky is such a clueless putz.

Posted by: Bill Herbert on October 3, 2002 11:52 PM


Posted by: RE on October 5, 2002 11:27 PM

It's about Max's belief, not facts.

Posted by: addison on October 6, 2002 12:17 AM