A Moonbat Primer
When is an indictment merely an allegation, and based on "no real evidence" or even remotely dispositive of "how bad" someone is? When the indictee is an alleged terrorist and aspiring dirty-bomber.
When is an indictment definitive proof of guilt and a cause for celebration? When the indictee is a Republican. Merry "Fitzmas," indeed.
Class dismissed.
UPDATE: The howling-mad moonbats aren't as silent on the Padilla indictment as I thought they would be, although they are indeed very quiet.
Nosirree, this post over at Daily Kos tackles the issue head-on. But while the "indictment=guilt" meme has been predictably abandoned when alleged terrorists are involved, they have somehow used it as a pretext to give the cadaverous "Bush=Hitler" meme another good flogging.
(WELCOME Malkin readers!)
(OTB link)
My peeve of the day. He legally changed his name to Abdullah al-Muhajir. Why call him anything else? We don't call a certain former boxer "Cassius Clay."
Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan | November 22, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Do you really welcome Malkin readers? Girl needs more gay in her life.
Posted by: manhattan offender | November 22, 2005 at 03:04 PM
Every link I have seen, from Wikipedia to the Associated Press story (both linked above) say that he is "also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir," not that he is no longer known as Jose Padilla.
Posted by: Malcontent | November 22, 2005 at 03:08 PM
M.O.: Yes, and Robbie and I plan to make her our fag hag.
Posted by: Malcontent | November 22, 2005 at 03:10 PM
True enough, Malcontent. They never say that Muhammed Ali "is also known as" Cassius Clay.
Posted by: Jim O'Sullivan | November 22, 2005 at 03:41 PM
Since when does a dirt-bag deserve the respect given to someone like Muhammed Ali? The name his parents gave him will do fine with me.
Posted by: John Beam | November 22, 2005 at 05:27 PM
I think you're missing my point.
Posted by: Jim O'sullivan | November 22, 2005 at 08:34 PM
Fitzgerald laid out the evidence that he collected in his indictment of Libby. Based on that indictment, many liberals thought Fitzgerald had a good case for perjury. During the investigation, and before the indictment, Fitzgerald didn't hold press conferences charging that Libby was guilty of anything.
BushCo has been alleging that Jose Padilla was a dirty bomber. Without an indictment, and without any evidence presented, they have been making the charge that he was planning an act of terrorism. For the last three years, as BushCo "investigated" Jose Padilla, he has been locked up, afforded none of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, BushCo finally trots out an indictment, and it doesn't mention the main charge that they've been tooting. You definitely are as you advertise - irritating, without regard for the facts. I am a libertarian. Malcontent, you are not.
Posted by: Andy | November 23, 2005 at 02:47 AM
I put it this way, Mal; these same people who are screaming about Padilla's "constitutional rights" change their tune about the need for indictments and trials and such when given the opportunity to criticize the Bush administration for allegedly knowing, but not imprisoning, the 9/11 terrorists in August of 2001.
Bluntly put, "defending the Constitution" is the latest spin used to defend irrational Bush-bashing from people who would be demanding the opposite if the Bush administration hadn't imprisoned Padilla.
Posted by: North Dallas Thirty | November 23, 2005 at 03:34 AM
On the Jose Padilla/ mohammed abdul Muhammed thing. He is primarily referred to as Padilla,there may be exceptions but every TV/print story leads off with that ID. The reason is simple,this way the media can stress with more ease the U.S. citizen bit which goes along with there overall campaign to treat all terrorists as native born hubcap thieves. You see this raises PROFOUND constittional questions which are best raised when a Republican is in the WH.
Posted by: johnt | November 23, 2005 at 07:17 AM
p.s. noticing that some constitutional questions ,profound or otherwise, have been already raised on this post,and the fact that Padilla/Muhammed whatever has been charged as an enemy combatant during a duly authorized war,could we get a comment on Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, ot the capture of Confederate soldiers from border non-secessionist states? Perhaps a quick blurb on the court's right to intervene during a duly authorized war against the other, let us remember, co-equal branches of goverment. Should we just save time and have the court named Commander in Chief de facto?
Posted by: johnt | November 23, 2005 at 07:35 AM
Ahh, those Progresso_Facist attack dogs are ready to go after Michelle Malkin:
"- Do you really welcome Malkin readers? Girl needs more gay in her life.
- M.O.: Yes, and Robbie and I plan to make her our fag hag."
Excuse me Miss, your hate is showing.
Posted by: Emma Morrow | November 23, 2005 at 07:35 AM
"Hate"? I thought it was funny. In fact, if Michelle would really like to be my fag hag, I would be quite honored. I'm sure she'd have fun at the bars with me.
I don't link to people I hate. Then again, I don't truly hate very many people, either.
Posted by: Malcontent | November 23, 2005 at 12:44 PM