Shorter Malkin
I bet you I can write a post that will make Auguste’s head explode.
With exactly zero new facts and a little conjecture on the part of a single bomb-squad member, Malkin declares Joel Hinrichs a wild-eyed American jihadist, again. And when I say zero new facts, I mean just that. There’s not even enough in the post to counterargue, it’s so spectacularly structurally unsound.
Update: Cam in comments:
Curiously, in her exhaustive research, Malkin seems to have missed some of Sgt. Mauldin’s other remarks. The OU Daily covered the same presentation, and it addressed the “Islamic connection” directly: “The suspicions of an Islamic connection were shown to be false, Mauldin said.”…
An honest oversight, I’m sure.
What else could it be?
In the face of unambiguous statements from authorities on terrorist activity, Malkin rekindles the X-Files mantra, “Trust No One”.
Now that I consider it, I think MM should have replaced Mulder in the latter season. Even better: The Malkins are the Fox Mulder of the blogosphere.
Comment by Ryan — March 1, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
There is one thing in Malkin’s post that does merit comment; it represents a textbook example of selective use of supposed evidence. Malkin quotes Sgt. George Mauldin’s remark that Hinrichs “accidentally blew himself up” in her attempt to show that Hinrichs was not merely a “lonely, depressed young student.” She goes on to quote some other blogger who claims that “Despite the official denials, there was substantial evidence at the time of Hinrichs death and in the days thereafter as more was learned about his background and actions during the final year of his life that suggested to others the distinct possibility that Hinrichs was involved in some way with a terrorist activity.” Curiously, in her exhaustive research, Malkin seems to have missed some of Sgt. Mauldin’s other remarks. The OU Daily covered the same presentation, and it addressed the “Islamic connection” directly: “The suspicions of an Islamic connection were shown to be false, Mauldin said.” (http://www.oudaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/02/28/440535120debd).
An honest oversight, I’m sure.
Comment by Cam — March 1, 2006 @ 9:26 pm
Great catch, Cam, thanks.
You would have thought that by now I’d know to follow the link every time.
Comment by Auguste — March 1, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
What on earth could be her rationale for even posting this? I mean, the story had already disappeared down the memory hole, along with any attendant shame of Republicans who jumped the gun when it first came out.
So why even try to revive it? Does she have, like, a posting quota and was so desperate she’d put anything up at all???
Comment by teh l4m3 — March 2, 2006 @ 5:09 am