The Blue Site

Richard Roeper: The Idiot

In the spirit of "no-spin," I wrote this. Not a huge issue, but it's always nice to recognize spin, and be able to completely refute it with truth.

Dishonesty from Richard Roeper

Richard Roeper is an idiot, and I have the proof.

In Michelle Malkin's Dec 10, 2003 article, she posts a quote from Roeper from his Nov 5, 2002 article on the DC snipers.

Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper railed against conservative

commentators such as the indomitable Mark Steyn, who had taken note of

Muhammad's Islamic faith and his reportedly expressed anti-American

sentiments after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Roeper also ridiculed National Review columnist James Robbins for

astutely observing that the sniper was acting "like a jihadist warrior."

Roeper smugly concluded: " . . . an awful lot of conservatives really,

really wanted the snipers to be terrorists. But they were wrong. I'll say

that because they never will."

Malkins points out over 10 exhibits for trial, pictures and rants from Malvo, where he praised the Sept 11 attacks and Osama Bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein. It's clear he is a muslim extremist...going as far as to change his name to show his muslim faith.

In Roeper's December 15, 2003 column (I tried to find the complete Nov 5, 2002 article, but I don't see an archive anywhere on the Chicago Sun Times site), he claims that:

Last week conservative columnist Michelle Malkin yapped about "the

media and Muslim activists" who "wanted us to believe that the serial

killings had absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism." Malkin

provided a selective list of Malvo's Islam-related drawings -- and

conveniently ignored all the other sketches.

She provided a "selective" list, and "ignored all the other sketches?" Richard, buddy- all she had to do was prove the fact that Malvo is clearly a muslim extremist- a point you denied, even going out of your way to attack conservatives for thinking so. She doesn't have to list any other drawings (tho, she links to the exact page with ALL of the exhibits that you claim she "ignored.") You're being intellectually dishonest, and that's just sad.

Also in his Dec 15, 2003 article, he says the following:

So in other words, I was right -- they're NOT al-Qaida. Thanks.

Wrong again, Richard. You're, once again, being dishonest. You never just said that they weren't al-Qaida, you said, "an awful lot of conservatives really, really wanted the snipers to be terrorists. But they were wrong. I'll say that because they never will."

So, they WEREN'T wrong, and you're claiming that you only pointed out that they weren't al-qaida, conveniently ignoring the fact that Malkin is actually debating you're erroneous claims that the snipers were not muslim "terrorists," which they clearly were.

ter·ror·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trr-st)

n.

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)

n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group

against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or

governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

It seems even The American Heritage Dictionary disagrees with Roeper on this one.

Finally, Roeper claims this:

When I wrote that Muhammad and Malvo weren't terrorists, it was in the

context of responding to conservative commentators who had wrongly

predicted the snipers would turn out to be Middle Eastern terrorists

working with a foreign group. Muhammad and Malvo didn't fit that

definition then, and they don't fit it now.

Now, he's using the "they misunderstood what I said" tactic, another dishonesty, when it's clear that we aren't idiots who took your quotes out of context, but rather, you're not apt to admit you were wrong, and you refuse to apologize for painting the picture of rabid conservatives who want more than anything to pin the snipings on muslim terrorists (which they are.)

Roeper has convinced me of one thing...he's a complete joke, and honesty is not in his venarcular.

A few other great articles I found from Malkin:

The party of Maxine Waters (Aug 21, 2000)
The predators of Planned Parenthood (Dec 3, 2003)
Peace prize for a murderer? (Nov 22, 2000)
Terrorists with Tofu breath (Nov 19, 2003)

And---
Merry Holiday by Rich Lowry
Howard Dean's Foreign Policy by David Limbaugh

Posted by Josh at December 16, 2003 05:56 AM | TrackBack