Caught giving false information, Horowitz attacked Media Matters with (yet another) falsehood
SUMMARY: Responding to a Media Matters item exposing his false claim that the Senate Intelligence Committee "exonerated" President Bush for stating that "[t]he British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- when in fact the language he quoted was from the British Butler report -- David Horowitz wrongly asserted that the Senate Intelligence Committee "cited the Butler report." In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not cite the Butler report, which was released almost a week after the Intelligence Committee released its report.
On December 13, Media Matters for America documented right-wing pundit David Horowitz's false claim that the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee "exonerated" President Bush for stating that "[t]he British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" during his 2003 State of the Union Address (the now-infamous "16 words"). In a December 13 NewsMax.com column, Horowitz claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the "16 words" were "well-founded." As Media Matters demonstrated, Horowitz was actually quoting the Butler report, a British government inquiry; the Senate Intelligence Committee documented doubts about the "16 words" voiced at the time by some U.S. intelligence officials. In a December 14 FrontPageMag.com weblog entry, Horowitz responded by accusing Media Matters of making "a tempest in a teapot," claiming that the Senate Intelligence Committee "cited the Butler report." In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee did not cite the Butler report, nor could it have: The Butler report was released almost one week after the Intelligence Committee released its report.
In his weblog entry, Horowitz, the editor-in-chief of FrontPageMag.com, accused Media Matters of engaging in "morally degenerate and intellectually bankrupt" attacks:
Today one of [Media Matters president and CEO David] Brock's minions has attacked me (this being one of 100 or so such forays) for my previous blog (see below) in which I wrote about the efforts of Democrats to sabotage the war on terror and stab our troops in the back by using the 16 true words in the President's 2003 State of the Union about uranium in Niger to undermine the credibility of the commander in chief. As Senator Lieberman put it, you undermine the credibility of the commander in chief at "our nation's peril."
I am small potatoes compared to the commander in chief but I am apparently very important to the myrmidons at Media Matters, because they have just run a long piece accusing me of "lying" about this issue. My sin seems to be confusing the Butler Report with a bi-partisan commission of the Senate that cited the Butler report. Boy, is this ever a tempest in a teapot. The sixteen words which the Democrats used to flay our own men and women in the field, as pointed out in my blog below were perfectly true then and the British obviously still stand by them now (e.g., the Butler report).
The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" does not cite the Butler report. Indeed, it would have been impossible for the Intelligence Committee to do so: The Butler report was released on July 14, 2004, five days after the Intelligence Committee report.
Horowitz also wrote:
BTW, Media Matters accuses me of being as big a liar now as I was when I was a Communist. I was never a Communist, unless you want to count being a minor child in a Communist household being a Communist (interesting guilt by association for lefties). But I will call this a mistake rather than a lie, even though Media Matters has never corrected an error about me in the past when it has been pointed out to them.
Media Matters never claimed Horowitz was a Communist. Horowitz apparently was referring to a reader comment posted to the December 13 Media Matters item, wrongly imputing it to Media Matters. This is not the first time Horowitz has engaged in this sort of duplicity: In December 2004, Horowitz pointed to a reader comment posted on the Media Matters website to falsely claim Media Matters "label[ed] Bill Cosby a racist."
Horowitz represents, if you'll allow me to borrow a phrase, the 'last throes' of life within a neocon cabal that truly does know it's on its way out. The jig's up. If Horowitz has little or no credibility now, just imagine his irrelevancy after 2006 and 2008. I hear there's an opening for a writer at Grit magazine, Davey boy.
It is unbelievable that people actually give this guy money to make stuff up. What a putz. He has no shame the way he actively hurts America by spreading propaganda and lies.
I remember you deleted some of mine. Unlike everyone else, I had been on topic.
If you let random people smear these mental munchkins by letting them publish their content on your site, you give them these countercharges (spurious though they be).
I'm the one who suggested Horowitz was a communist. So now Horowitz is going after me! I'm SOOOOO scared! (sarcasm off) If I goofed on Horowitz formerly being a communist, I do say to Horowitz, oops, sorry. Now, is Horowitz still a right-wing liar who fabricates stuff about college students being "discriminated" against, you bet.
...to these right wing hacks. Keep to the truth, but satire is OK, even if, as Al Franken said, the object of the satire (or supporters of the ones being satirized) doesn’t (don’t) get it.
BRAVO MMFA- we know he comes to this site and reads..can I send you another check ??
Horowitz is another chicken dung. He lies to defend a neocon agenda, and sends OTHERS to do the fighting he's never had the guts to do.
Like Ann Coulter, he's degrading to thinking conservatives everywhere.
Good night WHORowitz. Your day is over.
The sixteen words which the Democrats used to flay our own men and women in the field, as pointed out in my blog below were perfectly true
Okay, first, the "16 words" were not true and never were.
Second, the Butler report never said they were, it said rather that the Blair government (which was Butler's only source on the matter) claimed it had had good reason to believe the charge, which is not the same thing.
Third and central here, flay our own men and women in the field? What in blazes is he talking about? Who, anywhere, any time, blamed a soldier in the field (or out of it, for that matter) for Bush's lying? This is so bizarre that "misinformation" doesn't begin to describe it.
But don't you get it? Horowitz doesn't care! He doesn't care if he's telling the truth or not. He doesn't care that Saddam had no nuclear program - he's going to keep saying it anyway. He doesn't care that no one has attacked the troops over Bush's lies - he's going to keep saying it anyway. Because as long as it serves his ideological agenda, he doesn't care.
Horowitz and his neocon buddies share something in common with Leninists: the use of the Big Noble Lie technique. For both Leninists and neocons, it is noble to lie, especially to the proles, if that lie helps to advance the cause.
It's not surprising that many of the original neocons were Marxists. Moving from being a left-wing totalitarian to being a right-wing totalitarian is not really a big jump -- it's the same mentality after all -- and it pays a helluva lot better.
HEY MEDIA MATTERS MUST BE GETTING TO THESE RIGHT-WINGERS!!! RIGHT-WINGERS ONLY GO AFTER SOMEONE WHEN THEY ARE GETTING THERE POINT ACROSS.
Is that what we're doing by opposing the war?
Dang, I thought we were trying to end the sacrifice of American military personnel in an illegal and immoral invasion/occupation of a sovereign nation.
My bad.
If Horowitz ever fact checked anything, the world would probably end.
This is me talking, not Media Matters. I think you're not only a former Commie, but a racist, a pedophile and you beat your dog.
Now go ef yourself.