More Instapundit Bullshit

Glenn Reynolds links to the Washington Post article which demonstrates that Larry Thurlow is a lying liar. That's more than I expected of him. This precis, however, is exactly what I expected from him:

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE POST LOOKING AT MILITARY RECORDS? A story that's bad for Kerry's critics, I guess. No mention at all of the Cambodia story, though, in which Kerry's critics have been proved right -- and which the Post has ignored.

Can we quantify, perhaps, not just how factually incorrect this post is, but how severely dishonest it is? Reynolds' casual reference to the Post article, "a story that's bad for Kerry's critics," makes it sound as if there's another he said/she said controversy or something of the sort. Wrong! One of the most prominent and overplayed SBVF"T" charges against Kerry has been proven to be an outright lie. That's more than just "bad" for O'Neill & co. As for Cambodia as well as the fatuous charge of media bias, I think Ezra Klein has Instapundit's number dialed in on this one:

Instapundit (who I'm not going to link to) cites this story as further evidence of left-wing bias -- they won't talk about the Swift Boat allegations except to prove them wrong. What, he asks, of Cambodia, where Kerry was proved wrong?

It occurs to me that conservative bloggers would be very bad editors, as they have little ear for an interesting story. The Cambodia correction, at best, would read something like: "For years, John Kerry said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Recent documentation makes that untrue; he was there a few weeks later." Scintillating it isn't.

The fact that a book written by a Nixon hatchet man and a mouth-frothing anti-Semite/Catholic/Muslim/everybody got so much attention is evidence of media bias in the other direction. [Actually, it demonstrates that the primary media biases are towards sensationalism and laziness--ed.]