As a lawyer, I’m quite used to adversaries making specious,
fanciful, or outright dishonest arguments to persuade tribunals that their
positions on an issue are more meritorious than mine. So, it didn’t come as a
surprise that someone who blogs under the bizarre name of “Fishkite” (sub nom:
“the blog between church and state”—further proof that those two should never
be conjoined) would try to take me to task for

my most recent piece regarding Zach Wamp and one of his congressional
ideological soul mates’ attempt to rewrite history.

It didn’t even bother me that, bereft of any logic, he had
to resort to ridicule (i.e., my picture on the Flyer’s site, or even my
weight—both of which I’ve been told by many bolster my gravitas) to promote
his points (more about his comparison of me to Tom Petty later). That’s what
ideologues of his ilk usually do. I also wrote his attack off to the fact the
author apparently resides in Germantown, Tennessee, the local conservatives’
equivalent of Lake Wobegon, a lily white enclave on the outskirts of Memphis
which owes much of its popularity to the desegregation of the Memphis public
school system 30 years ago, and is most noteworthy, hereabouts, for
its overzealous speed limit enforcement.  What did bother me, though, was
the inanity and dishonesty of his “arguments.”

The inhabitants of “wingnuttia,” as the far right has come
to be known in the blogosphere, are fond of living in the 51st state (i.e., the
state of denial). Their heroes, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly,
Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter (need I say more?) use distortion, falsehood,
and yes, personal attacks, as a substitute for facts, reason and logic. It
matters not that all of these right wing ideologues have, at one time or
another, been completely and thoroughly discredited. The same audience that will
watch people eating live bugs for money on television will continue listening to
these unprincipled rabble rousers, and worse, believing what they say. They are
surely Exhibit A to H.L. Mencken’s observation that, “no one ever went broke
underestimating the taste [read: intelligence] of the American public.”

One of the ways these wingnuts (including my friend,
Fishkite) maintain their euphoric state of oblivion is to do what any petulant
child has learned to do: close their eyes, put their fingers in their ears and
then scream at the top of their lungs so they can avoid what they don’t want to
see or hear. That’s what Fishkite has done in his attempt to counter the
criticism I leveled at two congressmen who are, like him,  obviously out of
touch with reality. (

There are some things in the real world which most of us
occupy that aren’t subject to alternative interpretation. The sun rises in the
east and sets in the west; gravity pulls all objects towards the center of the
earth; and the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Yet in
the wingnuttia world, all of those principles are subject to contradiction if
you strain hard enough (i.e., gravity is just a “theory,” and astronomy is
anathema to “intelligent design”), but especially if and when those principles
are advanced by the avowed enemy of all wingnuts: progressives (a/k/a liberals).
Science, logic and a thousand years of human history are all swept aside by the
likes of Fishkite when espoused by a progressive. 

So it isn’t surprising that he would try to contradict two
of the main points of my piece, namely that Iraq had, and still has, no WMD’s
(as that term was used to buffalo us into a war of choice) and that there was no
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Quaeda. It doesn’t matter that the
current administration has long since given up the ghost on both of these
points, despite the political damage it has done to their principal proponents.
There is no argument or position a wingnut can use, no matter how thoroughly
discredited, that they can’t resuscitate to support their theories.

Perhaps the best illustration of the kind of fish effluent
Fishkite and his ilk summon in support of their state of denial is the episode
involving Dick Cheney’s denial about what he said concerning  the Saddam/al
Qaeda connection back when he was the administration’s main cheerleader in the
runup to the war. Take a look at

this clip: In it you see Cheney denying, in an interview with CNN’s Gloria
Borger, that he ever said it had been “pretty well confirmed” that a meeting
took place between Mohamad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, and Iraqi
intelligence officials in Czheckoslovakia. You will also see the excerpt from
Cheney’s earlier appearance on “Meet the Press” where he made precisely
the statement he tried to deny making in the interview with Borger. So, it’s not
bad enough Cheney carried the administration’s water in making the phony case
for a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda; he had to try (and not very
cleverly either) to lie about making it.

So does Fishkite concede the gravity, straight line, sun
rises and sets facts about this episode of Cheney revisionism? Of course not.
Instead, he chooses, once again, to engage in

ideological sophistry. It wasn’t a Cheney lie, it was a Cheney “gaffe.” In
other words, don’t believe what your eyes and ears tell you; they are, after
all, only senses, and senses can be fooled. Senses may even be part of a liberal
conspiracy. Believe what Fishkite, with his eyes shut and his fingers planted
firmly in his ears, tells you is the truth. The other thing he does is to
distort the 9/11 Commission’s report. He mischaracterizes its findings as being
that there were no “high level” contacts, when, in fact,

what the Commission found was that there was “no collaborative
relationship” (emphasis mine) between Iraq and al Qaeda. I’m sure he thinks
that’s just a slight difference in degree, and not, as it is (an inconvenient
truth), a significant difference in kind.

With that standard in mind, I suggest you have all the
information you need to judge the merit of Fishkite’s criticism of my piece on
Zach Wamp’s disconnect from reality.

Finally, I’m flattered by Fishkite’s suggestion (obviously
not meant as a compliment) that I look like Tom Petty. Petty’s song,

“Won’t Back Down,” is one of my favorites, and is certainly expresses an
essential element of my credo. But, as if that weren’t enough to endear Fishkite
to me for making the comparison, there’s also the interview of Tom Petty in the
new “Esquire” magazine, (thanks to

TalkLeft) which reveals something else we share. He says in the interview:

The war in Iraq is shameful. Whether you’re pro or con Bush, you’ve got to
admit: The guy lied. And he continues to do so. I can’t understand why he’s just
not run out on a rail. To send somebody’s kids off and have them killed for no
good reason–he’s going to have his day in hell for that. I wouldn’t want that
karma.

Thanks again,
Fishkite.