Michael Ledeen and Linda Chavez ... were ... more concretely, suggesting that we concretize these evil counsels by a) shooting unarmed wounded combatants...That is a lie. Ledeen never said that. This was pointed out to Shea at the time (the needed links to the originals are all there). Even in his own comboxes, Shea had no rebuttal beyond mocking people's motives. Under British law, and with the time and energy to spare, Ledeen could win a fat libel suit IMHO. (Neither of those two hypotheticals obtain obviously, but they are not morally relevant.)
As I said, I stopped reading the new post at that point. What would be the purpose? Shea either doesn't listen to what other people say, even on basic factual matters like "so-and-so said X" or thinks spreading falsehood is morally licit. For the sake of charity, I'm going with the former option. But intellectual exchange is not possible either with those who refuse to listen or those who repeat what they (should) know to be false.
No comments:
Post a Comment