O'Reilly's pants continue to burn
JED BABBIN, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR, AMERICAN SPECTATOR: Well, it was fairly typical of what they always do. They disagreed with something I said on television. It was about the Iraq war and the fact that we did not find Saddam's weapons of mass destruction proved absolutely nothing about whether he had them before the war, because we gave him six months to fiddle and diddle with them and Charles Deulfer's (search) report probably shows that they were taken somewhere else, perhaps, into Syria.Um, no.
Basically, by the time that I got home, they had somehow found my e-mail address and posted it on their Web site, saying that I was a liar and I'd gotten, oh, I don't know, 100, 150 e-mails, all on the basic eloquence level of liar, liar, pants on fire.
O'REILLY: So they violated your privacy by putting out your personal e-mail address. Then the zombies that feed off the trough of these people wrote pretty much the identical e-mail. Because I get identical e-mails. That's what I get. So they're pretty much identical. These zombies can't even think for themselves. They have to tell them what to write, correct?
Media Matters did put an e-mail address on their article, but it wasn't personal. The e-mail they used was email@example.com. Until sometime earlier this year, if you had clicked on the E-mail Author choice in the upper-right hand side of a Jed Babbin National Review Online article, that's the e-mail that would have come up. It was the National Review's e-mail naming system (Jonah Goldberg=JonahNRO@aol.com) and was readily available long before Media Matters ever put it on the web.
Sometime earlier this year, though, there was a change to the National Review's system. Now, clicking e-mail author gets you firstname.lastname@example.org. When Media Matters ran their article on June 7th, however, it's likely that they searched for Jed Babbin's e-mail and found it either on this rightwing blog among a bunch of other conservative e-mail addresses (posted 10 months before Media Matters listed it) or on, say, a copied Babbin column which shows the old NRO e-mail listed at the top, like this one.
In other words, O'Reilly, once again, can't even be bothered to get the little things right. The man simply does not care for the truth.
P.S. You should, by the way, go back and read the original Media Matters report on Babbin. Babbin said this:
The Duelfer report said that. The Duelfer report also said that there was a very substantial body of evidence that showed that much of what Saddam had was moved and might have been moved into Syria. Duelfer said that very specifically.Guess what? He's still lying. In March of this year, Duelfer released an addendum to his original report (PDF link). One section of it was titled, "Prewar Movement of WMDMaterial Out of Iraq." I reprint it in it's entirety here, with Nitpicker emphases.
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials, examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve.Yes, your pants do appear to be on fire, sir.
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation. It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found. At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.