Simon calls Wilson a "deeply evil human being" because he caught a look at himself in a pocket mirror.

The "Conservative" Fatwah is nothing more than a giant Projection Machine. Whatever they're saying about anyone else applies directly to them.

Roger Simon has become the worst sort of propagandist -- he simply follows the party line then goes out and looks for arguments to back up his position. He has no individual beliefs of his own.

It is a shame abour Roger Simon because I was (and still am) a fan of his fiction. But it seems that the events of september 11th combined with the echo chamber of the blogoshpere have irreperably harmed both is moral and analytical compasses. It's a real shame because he still seems like kind of a nice guy, but he's just gone so far around the bend that it's just pathetic. I think the back-slapping and comments on the his website make him think he's doing some important work on his weblog, when in reality he's just providing another outlet for (I don't want to say right wing, because I'm kind of right-wing, and this isn't the stuff I go for) his crowd to sit around and talk about how evil Liberals and Muslims are. Blech.

Roger Simon writes:

"He is a deeply evil human being willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain..."

What a perfect description of George Bush.

What are Roger Simon's qualifications to judge Joseph C. Wilson? Simon has no foreign policy experience. He has no intelligence experience. He has no political experience. He has no legal experience.

It's amazing how neocons go into a froth whenever Barbra Streisand makes a political statement, yammering about know-nothing celebrities involved in politics.

Yet when the screenwriter of "Scenes from a Mall" and "Bustin' Loose" makes a political statement, the neocons act like it should be carved into tablets of stone.

Roger Simon is as clueless as Barbra Streisand.

Actually, Roger Simon is well-educated, widely traveled and deeply read. His "qualifications" probably are about as good as most of representatives and senators who vote on these issues. The point is not that Simon--or Streisand or anybody else, for that matter--has no right to speak on these issues, but that he has spoken in intemperately and in error. The distinction is a crucial one and ignoring it is one of the things that makes our public square such a nasty and uncivil place these days.

Perhaps I'm missing something. Isn't it clear to most people at this point that Joseph C. Wilson lied to one degree or another? Most coverage admits as much. Simon got miffed at Wilson. Are you killing the messenger who brings the bad news?

No it's not clear at all.

And if he did lie and that lie makes him evil, what about the lies of the Bush administration? Do we get to call them "evil" too?

Or would that be "shrill"?

If President Bush et al knowingly lied about WMDs - that is to say, knew we would not find any - then, yes that would be evil. I'm not convinced they did not believe their own statements.

My perception of Roger L. Simon and his blog is that he is far more concerned with demeaning or making character attacks on those with whom he disagrees than with articulating any coherent view of the war in Iraq or US foreign policy generally. I stopped reading him several months ago when he posted a long and ugly rant which he concluded by declaring that critics of Bush and the war are in fact "pro-fascist" and should be labelled as such.

If we want to identify the roots of incivility, this sort of "those who disagree with me are knaves or fools" approach to argument would be a good place to start.

Just in case anyone wants to read the actual code section:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html

Simon calls Wilson a "deeply evil human being" because he caught a look at himself in a pocket mirror.

Ah, the old "you too!" argument. Well, it's good to know that it's not just conservatives using the overheated rhetoric.

I wonder if there is anything "nasty or uncivil" about calling Fox News "pseudojournalists" on the basis of a phony study -- or calling it "the most blatantly biased major American news organization since the era of yellow journalism." Or strongly implying that conservative bloggers are full of "malice, mendacity and misrepresentation."

Simon and Patterico banned me from their websites and I've been chased off pressthink by the same ilk. They're vindictive propagandististic nihilistas. To quote Mr. T: "I pity the fool who agrees with that bunch."

All they have to offer is hate, ridicule and as one anonymous taunter told me at xrlq, (another one) he's "not a nice person online or off." That's the only truthful statment he's ever said.

People like Simon are an appeal to inappropriate authority found on many blogs. Yet they assault real journalists as biased and unqualified. It's breathtaking hypocrisy. My cfredentials were trounced repeatedly by his cronies. They crucified Mr. Rutten. I read his piece and agree with his reporting on the issue. I've reported as much on it myself, not to mention Josh Marshall.

What the detractors like Patterico and Simon do fail to see in it, is the lack on blatent bias they hold and favor. We can be thankful for that.

The libeling of me continues at Patterico's. For those who use your own names, watch it with this crowd. I suggest you shut Tim up Patterico, he doesn't ever let anything go. This guy is dangerous.

Apparently the anonymous prosecutor read this and issued a mandate at his site, but of course only my posts were removed, while those of my defamists remain. How nice.