It's not just Glenn Greenwald, asking the question about left vs right smears

[Hamlette]

Once again we've seen the right on the attack. They find a few posts from lefties saying they wish Cheney would have died in the attack and use it to show how wacko the left is.

Glenn asked why is it that the right uses lone posts from annonymous posters to "prove" the left is unhinged yet their pundits are equally unhinged (think Coulter).

Here is a most disgusting post from Bill Kristol on the issue:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/03/huffington_and_puffington.asp

"Enlighten us, Arianna. Poll your readers. Ask them: Are they pleased that the attempt against Vice President Cheney failed? Are they grateful that he is alive and well? Do you hope the U.S. prevails in Afghanistan? In Iraq?"

And Sullivan's comment on it:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/03/bill_vs_arianna.html

"I would be more impressed if I had ever heard Bill Kristol ever take on the extremists that dominate his side of the aisle. Has Kristol ever said that he finds Ann Coulter's books to be disgusting? Has he ever disowned his Fox News colleage Sean Hannity's equation of liberalism and terrorism in the subtitle of a recent book? Did he offer a squeak of opposition to a book titled "Party of Death," clearly referring to the Democrats? Did he dress down the more extreme anti-Clinton elements in the 1990s? Not that I recall. Maybe I have missed his criticisms of fellow "conservatives". If I have, I'll gladly post them. But for a man who has made a career appeasing and coopting extremists on the far right, he is in a pretty elaborate glass house with respect to Arianna."

(If you're not reading Glenn Greenwald on Salon you really should. He' great. He even had a great post a couple of week back on Sullivan.

Here he poses the question:

There is a reason why those who seek to demonstrate the alleged extremism and hate-mongering in the anti-Bush blogosphere need to go digging for anonymous commenters. And the converse is also true: those who document the extremism and sociopathic mentality in the right-wing blogosphere do so by citing the twisted writings of leading right-wing pundits, not randomly chosen commenters with no connection to the content or theme of the blog. Perhaps there is a journalist somewhere who can figure out the meaning of that difference and write an article about it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/27/comments/index.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. I don't want to see Cheney dead in a terrorist attack.

That'd make him an undeserved martyr. I do want to see him stand trial for war crimes against humanity. Does that make me a mean person?

[glitch]

2. I want to see him convicted and serve a life term and no parole. And I want him to live

a long life. Does that make me meaner?

[jumpoffdaplanet]

3. Not mentioned is the school of thought...

The anonymous "loons" are more than likely right-wing trolls posting said comments to be used in said smear campaigns.

Otherwise how do these few "loony" comments even get found in a sea of reasonable comments.