The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf must have had some straw left over from his recent piece in which he “exposed” Twitchy founder Michelle Malkin as a “xenophobe” for raising the same concerns about border security that Friedersdorf himself had written about — before quietly “evolving” on the issue, apparently. This week, it’s fellow Atlantic writer Joshua Foust’s turn to clean up Friedersdorf’s mess; fortunately, he had help from those with adequate reading comprehension skills.
https://twitter.com/stcolumbia/status/317735676659507201
Friedersdorf’s piece, “Let’s Make Drone Strikes Safe, Legal, and Rare,” is available at The Atlantic’s website, but Foust’s tweets are a better investment of your time.
.@conor64's claim that drone critics like @joshuafoust don't want reform of program _very_ innacurate http://t.co/ROk4zfwl6i
— Will McCants (@will_mccants) March 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317696720291131393
@joshuafoust @will_mccants @conor64 The quote of yours he used is not in the piece he cited.
— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) March 29, 2013
@sarahkendzior Sorry, I put in the wrong link. This is the correct one, now fixed in the piece http://t.co/5sLImuL8cO
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
Oops, wrong link! Why does that sound so familiar…
Uh-huh. RT @conor64 @michellemalkin Sorry, thought I had. It is now linked.
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) March 21, 2013
But that isolated, one-time mixup was last week; back to Foust.
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317732394037825536
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317699275842805761
@sarahkendzior Not sure why he calls it "twisting of facts." They are in fact his words.
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317732462761488384
Recommended
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317733027742642176
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317733183846232065
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317734021759127552
@joshuafoust What is it? Do you want to stop drone strikes pending certain reforms?
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317734872431083520
@joshuafoust I still don't understand what your specific objection is, and all caps aren't helping!
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
Yes, enough with the capital letters — the big words are hard enough to understand without making them bigger.
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317735423055106048
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317735878300672001
@joshuafoust I'm actually engaged in trying to figure it out, which isn't being hastened by your approach!
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317736612471635968
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317736755673563137
@joshuafoust I am reading now…
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
Sticking to reading might be a good career choice; writing without doing research first isn’t working out.
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317736872161988608
https://twitter.com/joshuafoust/status/317737566206038017
The blowback from Friedersdorf’s hit piece on Michelle Malkin hasn’t slowed him down after all. Should we look forward to strike three next week?
@joshuafoust Is @conor64 doing that again? Weird.
— China is lying (@jtLOL) March 29, 2013
* * *
Update:
This is fun. Jeffrey Lord has published a piece at The American Spectator today outing Friedersdorf as a “conservative huckster.” Friedersdorf’s response? I never said I was a conservative.
Jeffrey Lord: Conor Friedersdorf, the Huckster #tcot http://t.co/ya0O9sLtI5
— The American Spectator (@amspectator) March 29, 2013
https://twitter.com/reidtsmith/status/317739347094949888
@reidtsmith Thanks for the piece. And FYI, contra Lord, I've explicitly said many times that I am not a conservative.
— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) March 29, 2013
Join the conversation as a VIP Member