|Gary Aldrich vs. David Brock
I read your article on my op ed, and I assume you are a Brock apologist and probably a friend of his. Brock's book is one lie after another, and instead of asking me to disprove anything he wrote, efforts should be made by somebody - Brock - you? anybody to prove anything that Brock wrote. After all, he's the admitted liar.
And you're wrong about my book -- every major journalist in town has admitted I've been vindicated. Only the fringe loony left crowd maintains a position that my book is inaccurate.
Or, you may be Gay. I've noticed that Gays tend to defend each other regardless of the facts, and that may be because they think any attack launched against a fellow Gay is evidence of homophobia. Am I right? I couldn't care less that Brock is Gay. But I do care that he's a liar, and according to a recent Drudge and Washington Times piece, he's also emotionally overtaxed, enough to get hospital confinement. I'm not happy about his illness, but I think one must assume that a person who's that sick cannot be taken seriously. Except by people like you who care less about the facts.
Terry Krepel responds:
Interesting argument there -- putting the onus on the reader to do fact-checking on an author. Isn't that what publishing houses pay fact-checkers for? How many worked on your book?
If David Brock is such a liar and therefore easily contradicted, why haven't you or anyone else done that? No facts of substance have been challenged in Brock's book. This undeniable fact strongly suggests to me that Brock must be telling the truth; otherwise, he would be up against a stack of libel suits. The veritable wall of silence on the right speaks for itself. Not even you, to whom Brock has based an entire chapter of his book, have cited any specific inaccuracies in the book.
Apparently, all you and your fellow conservatives can do, lacking the ammunition to attack Brock on the facts -- because if you could, y'all would have done it by now -- is launch personal attacks. Not only do you go after his sexual orientation (and mine, which is nobody's business but my own), you allege mental instability on Brock's part. Such an accusation would hold water if you could provide a link between that and any wild inaccuracies in the book. Which you have not done.
I see where you defended the rumor-mongering in your own book by saying, "This is not a case presented to a grand jury." Yet you are apparently demanding a grand jury level of veracity from Brock's book -- and you can't offer any evidence that he has failed to live up to even your standards of accuracy.
As long as you continue to attack and smear without offering even the slightest shred of evidence, I'm the one whose time is getting wasted here.
To put it succintly: Put up or shut up.
Have something to say about ConWebWatch? Write to firstname.lastname@example.org
home | letters | archive | about | links | shop
This site Copyright 2000-02 Terry Krepel