A fesity discussion ensued on the list this first came from, of which this is the latest:


Yesterday, Michelle Malkin argues that Paul Krugman is entitled to his own opinion about Ashcroft, but not to his own set of facts about terrorist prosecutions. To make her point, she excerpts part of an earlier Krugman column (May 11, 2004))
in which he again complains that Ashcroft has not convicted any actual
terrorists. Of course, she left out of her excerpt his next sentence
which read, "(Look at the actual trials of what Dahlia Lithwick
of Slate
calls "disaffected bozos who watch cheesy training videos," and you'll
see what I mean.)." Since he was not unaware of these prosecutions,
Krugman was expressing an opinion about what constituted 'actual'
terrorists. The list of convicted terrorists that Malkin offers to
rebuke Krugman, if one takes the time to try to even remember who they
were, actually makes Krugman's point, that these were 'disaffected
bozos,' not actual, competent terrorists. No doubt they represented a
problem that needed cleaning up, but not something which merits
boasting about.

One might disagree with Krugman's assessment of the importance of these
cases, but that is his opinion which Malkin asserts he is entitled to.
Yet, instead of taking on Krugman's opinion, Malkin tries to subvert it
by pretending he was simply ignorant of facts. This is contumelious and
typical of what David Brock documents in "The Republican Noise Machine:
Right Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy."