tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post3783387373318889586..comments2024-03-28T05:37:00.890-04:00Comments on the daily howler: It’s time for Glenn Kessler to fact-check O’Reilly! <b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-90964571249842358232013-06-06T11:14:42.297-04:002013-06-06T11:14:42.297-04:00Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely think thi...Spot on with this write-up, I absolutely think this website needs much more attention.<br />I'll probably be returning to see more, thanks for the info!<br /><br />Also visit my web page; <a href="http://breastactivescoupon.com/breast-actives-reviews.html" rel="nofollow">read what he said</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56311638282500853582013-06-05T19:43:27.070-04:002013-06-05T19:43:27.070-04:00"There's a great deal that we don't k..."There's a great deal that we don't know."<br /><br />You should have stopped right there because the rest is pure Newsmax, but you just can't help yourself.<br />dick tucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22297605821683959532013-06-05T16:55:48.046-04:002013-06-05T16:55:48.046-04:00Umm, those Hannity cites are from Politifact, not ...Umm, those Hannity cites are from Politifact, not Kessler. I think the point stands. Ray DeLagartonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-46347207602115197892013-06-05T15:50:24.734-04:002013-06-05T15:50:24.734-04:00O'Reilly is citing a bogus number to insinuate...O'Reilly is citing a bogus number to insinuate that the White House engaged in criminal behavior. He could ask the other questions on your list, but the cattle just don't find them as tasty.Quaker in a Basementnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-33959282317051725912013-06-05T15:42:41.302-04:002013-06-05T15:42:41.302-04:00Five? Pardon me, I should have said seven.Five? Pardon me, I should have said seven.Quaker in a Basementnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72917298536499389182013-06-05T15:40:49.824-04:002013-06-05T15:40:49.824-04:00Kessler continues to fact-check politicians-- not ...<i>Kessler continues to fact-check politicians-- not cable TV hosts. </i><br /><br />Bob cites five separate, specific instances in which you are wrong. Don't know or don't care?Quaker in a Basementnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67111154032379200262013-06-05T14:12:02.439-04:002013-06-05T14:12:02.439-04:00At some point Bob seemed to forget that Bill spent...At some point Bob seemed to forget that Bill spent a great deal of time demanding that Janet Reno arrest Al Gore. He is one lying, unscrupulous blowhard and his rational moments simply demonstrate what a fake he is. <br /> Again, for degenerate personalities like David in Ca, the important thing is to be on the OFFENSIVE, that's why they buy the product. Give them their special prosacutor and inevitable humiliation and the ill will they so richly deserve.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288008924419574934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88141845154705671542013-06-05T13:15:02.715-04:002013-06-05T13:15:02.715-04:00"This creates an obvious question: When is th..."This creates an obvious question: When is the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler going to fact-check O’Reilly?"<br /><br />Kessler continues to fact-check politicians-- not cable TV hosts. TDH doesn't know or doesn't care. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-41426952485165151582013-06-05T12:53:10.738-04:002013-06-05T12:53:10.738-04:00No, unless Shulman visited the WH 157 times, there...No, unless Shulman visited the WH 157 times, there is no scandal. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67521897675719997092013-06-05T12:34:49.381-04:002013-06-05T12:34:49.381-04:00First time commenter. First time seeing this blog....First time commenter. First time seeing this blog. I'm not into Politainment, e.g., O'Reilly, Maddow, etc., however, I was channel surfing and came across a rant by Rachel Maddow where she clearly overstated the case and overplayed her hand. At worst, she misled her viewers. The Atlantic piece says that the total number of times Shulman visited is *inscrutable*, as it is *common* for visitors to come but not be logged in as visiting that day. So, in the spirit of fairness, I guess, you should do a similar post on Maddow. 2¢Maul P.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15227129983621069565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15436310559486723482013-06-05T11:02:42.992-04:002013-06-05T11:02:42.992-04:00Did Shulman visit the White House 157 times? Did h...<i>Did Shulman visit the White House 157 times? Did he visit the White House with anything like that frequency?<br /><br />Almost surely, he did not</i><br /><br />I agree with Bob's conclusion, but was struck by the phrase <i>"almost surely".</i> <i>Almost surely</i> means <i>We don't know.</i> There's a great deal that we don't know.<br /><br />We don't know how many times Shulman visited the White House. We don't know the exact purpose of each visit. We don't know when Shulman first became aware of the abuse. We don't know whether senior IRS personnel or high White House personnel were involved in the targeting of conservative groups or, if so, which ones were involved. We don't know how the instruction to targets conservatives was promulgated and enforced. We don't know how the Inspector General's report detailing IRS abuse was kept secret until after the 2012 election. <br /><br />While O'Reilly is probably wrong to focus on Shulman's WH visits, I think O'Reilly is right to keep pounding on the theme that the public ought to know more about the IRS's abuse of its power.David in Calnoreply@blogger.com