December 24, 2005
Guess what -- the alleged victim of this intrusive government spying on innocent Americans admits that it is a lie.
Or so one of the professors involved tells us -- because he won't identify the student. Neither will the Boston Globe, which interviewed the student this week.
It rocketed across the Internet a week ago, a startling newspaper report that agents from the US Department of Homeland Security had visited a student at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth at his New Bedford home simply because he had tried to borrow Mao Tse-Tung's ''Little Red Book" for a history seminar on totalitarian goverments.The story, first reported in last Saturday's New Bedford Standard-Times, was picked up by other news organizations, prompted diatribes on left-wing and right-wing blogs, and even turned up in an op-ed piece written by Senator Edward M. Kennedy in the Globe.
But yesterday, the student confessed that he had made it up after being confronted by the professor who had repeated the story to a Standard-Times reporter.
The professor, Brian Glyn Williams, said he went to his former student's house and asked about inconsistencies in his story. The 22-year-old student admitted it was a hoax, Williams said.
''I made it up," the professor recalled him saying. ''I'm sorry. . . . I'm so relieved that it's over."
The student was not identified in any reports. The Globe interviewed him Thursday but decided not to write a story about his assertion, because of doubts about its veracity. The student could not be reached yesterday.
Williams said the student gave no explanation. But Williams, who praised the student as hard-working and likeable, said he was shaken by the deception.
''I feel as if I was lied to, and I have no idea why," said Williams, an associate professor of Islamic history. He said the possibility the government was scrutinizing books borrowed by his students ''disturbed me tremendously."
I have several reactions to this.
First, I never doubted that the story was a hoax. That particular book wouldn't get you watched when the Cold War was at its height -- why would it today?
Second, why won't those who know identify the hoaxer? They were more than willing to report the story -- why not "the rest of the story"?
Third, will UN-Dartmouth take disciplinary action against the student?
Fourth, are criminal charges an option given the seditious nature of the lie that was told?
A certain segment of the American public hates this country and identifies with its enemies. They are willing to lie, steal, and commit acts of violence to undermine the US in the Crusade Against Islamist Terrorism. There needs to be a cost to such misdeeds -- and a high one.
(H/T -- Blogs for Bush, GOPBloggers,, Politburo Diktat)
UPDATE: Looks like Senator Kennedy (DUI-Chappaquidick) is not backing down from his column -- and is saying that the truth doesn't matter.
But Kennedy isnÂ’t apologizing. Far from it, his spokesman is adopting a variant of the Dan Rather fake-but-accurate line:
Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ‘’public reports” in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.So the Senator’s negative opinion, based on fiction, somehow is still real. Because feelings matter more than facts, I suppose.
If Kennedy were a man, he would publicly apologize to President Bush for repeating a vicious lie about him and giving it credence. But of course, if Kennedy were a man, Mary Joe Kopechne would be alive.
Indeed.
MORE FROM: Michelle Malkin, Right Wing Nut House, In The Bullpen, Pirates!, Verum Serum, Slant Truth, Paladin Blog.
Posted by: Greg at
09:27 AM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
Post contains 698 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Ron at Sat Dec 24 10:07:30 2005 (vq86U)
Posted by: Phil at Sat Dec 24 13:28:06 2005 (E/iE/)
We were lied to for eight years by Clinton, and you libs ate it up. You have lied about this president since he won the election in 2000.
Why should we believe you now?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Dec 24 14:04:42 2005 (w3gUd)
Posted by: Ron at Sat Dec 24 19:51:39 2005 (vq86U)
Posted by: Chad at Sun Dec 25 09:14:30 2005 (E2GpM)
Posted by: Kevin Andre Elliott at Sun Dec 25 10:39:18 2005 (yKPk9)
And Kevin, I know there are many honest liberals out there -- I'm married to one. But I fear that the moonbats of Kos and DU are probably much more indicative of a major stain in the American Left today than you want to admit. Hence my rather confrontational title for this piece.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Dec 25 10:48:40 2005 (O/XaS)
Point taken.
I, on the other hand, am on a mission to rescue liberalism from the Michael Moore set. And I'd like to see conservatism rescued from the Michelle Malkin set. Please forgive my language, but fuck those people. I guess I'm one of those "constitutional absolutists" that everyone hates these days. I beleive that President Bush has violated the constitution and should be impeached because of it. I also wholeheartedly support the 2nd ammendment and the right to protect your property--with deadly force if necessary. Liberalism, to me, is pro-American, and you can't be pro-American without respecting the constitution and what it stands for. Now, as a black man, I understand that we have not always respected our constitution, but I also recognize that we are continually getting closser to our constitutional idea. It's not always a pretty picture, but we will get there eventually.
Posted by: Kevin Andre Elliott at Mon Dec 26 13:00:47 2005 (yKPk9)
Furthermore, I believe President Bush has not violated the constitution, but rather, he has properly utilized his authority to protect this nation from threats both foreign and domestic in accordance with his oath of office.
Please consider all the unfounded fodder coming from the left in their nonstop attacks on Dubya.
He stole the election in 2000 by rigging the Florida vote with help from his brother. He stole the election in 2004 by rigging the voting machines in Ohio. OH, don't forget the VP's role Plumegate... Oh I meant Carl Rove... oh I meant Libby lied!!!! Well, just keep after it and maybe you'll get lucky, some day, maybe.
The problem for the left is, in a word, integrity. Bush has it, Clinton didn't, and the current Democratic leadership (and I use the word leadership laughingly) doesn't even know what it is. Bush is just an honest guy and it’s hard to get the goods on an honest guy who is out to do his best. Problematic for the Dems I'll grant you.
Oh, and maybe the guy who thinks Bush should be tried for treason can explain just what treasonous act Dubya committed. Surely you don't think that wiretapping without a warrant is treason and if not talk about being off topic.
Posted by: Mark at Tue Dec 27 08:32:22 2005 (PS0uM)
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
As for the second amendment, with what will you defend your property if the liberal left have their way?
The point I'm trying to make here is that you can't pick and choose bits of the Constitution to fit your needs. I've noticed a lot of people who completely disregard the 2nd Amendment all of the sudden running to the 4th amendment and the Federalist papers in order to bash Bush. My point is that you can't have it both ways. If you're going to read the Constitution in an absolutist manner (which I have a tendency, rightly or wrongly, to do), you have to take the entire document for what it says or work to amend what it says. And to be perfectly honest, if you break into this liberal's home and attempt to hurt me or my family, you are liable to get shot. I have a feeling that growing up in a lower class neighborhood where people will shoot you for your shoes and managing to get out of that neighborhood has damaged my liberal credentials on that one. So be it.
I also have little patience for "Bush is not the rightful president" talk. He's the president. Case Closed. Once again, those of us that don't like it need to work for a better president in the future(and no, Hillary is not that president).
And yes, I do believe that Bush should be tried for treason. He has openly violated his oath to uphold the Constitution (see the 4th Amendment, read the Federalist Papers). Granted, I may have gone a little off topic on that one, however.
Posted by: Kevin Andre Elliott at Tue Dec 27 13:17:52 2005 (yKPk9)
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Dec 27 13:46:39 2005 (Z7Wsy)
And for the record, I appreciate that those of you that have responded to my posts have done so in a civilized manner--no name calling, just pointing out errors as you see them. This is how these sorts of debates should be conducted. I'm going to go do some studying now and I'll be back with a reply soon.
Best
Posted by: Kevin Andre Elliott at Tue Dec 27 14:11:37 2005 (yKPk9)
Posted by: Mark at Wed Dec 28 06:49:43 2005 (PS0uM)
Article III. - The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by Amendment XI.)
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3 - Treason Note
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
My comments will come tomoroow.
Posted by: Kevin Andre Elliott at Wed Dec 28 14:37:58 2005 (yKPk9)
I don't see what there is to comment on -- the definition is very clear-cut and does not apply in the situation where you cuggest charges should be filed.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Dec 28 14:46:13 2005 (+o4BZ)
21 queries taking 0.0091 seconds, 44 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.