I was going to ignore the latest claims of Andrew Breitbart’s flying monkeys, as they desperately tried to pretend that they “totally discredited” my post fact-checking Breitbart’s lies about the leaked Rep. Weiner photograph. I’ve learned that there’s no point in engaging these people with arguments or logic; they just get more and more irrational, then end up peeing on the carpet (figuratively speaking) and storming off, spewing insults.

But I realized that this case is a great example of the distortion tactics of the right wing. So let’s take a little trip into the wingnut weeds, shall we?

The LGF post that struck a huge nerve in the right wing blogosphere this week, and garnered more than 3600 retweets to date: Fact Checking Breitbart’s Statement on the Leaked Photo.

Andrew Breitbart camp follower Lee Stranahan is our case in point. This week he’s been spinning like an Iranian centrifuge, trying to deflect attention away from Breitbart’s reckless and totally irresponsible behavior in any way possible.

He launched this effort with a charming post full of the usual moronic right wing insults: Little Green Liar Selectively Edits Breitbart.

Stranahan’s disgust for me is so overwhelming that he’s unable to type my name, and calls me “Chuckles” throughout his vitriolic post. He claims that I “selectively edited” Andrew Breitbart’s statement about the leaked photo.

My “Chuckles” alter ego apparently has some amazing powers of deception — because the post in question quoted Andrew Breitbart’s statement in full. Every word of it.

This attack fell flat almost immediately, because it was obviously, ridiculously false — even Stranahan’s own commenters could see it:

Amanda June 9, 2011 at 3:32 am

What selective editing? The whole Breitbart statement was posted at LGF, Lee. Go ahead and correct your mistake.

[…]

Guest June 9, 2011 at 3:49 am

I followed your link, and Amanda is correct. The “Little Green Footballs” site quoted Breitbart, the Republican circus clown, in full. If you want to find a “liar,” look in the mirror. So, how’s the fundraising going for your “documentary?”

Of course, Stranahan never made any mention of it, or corrected his dishonest claim. Par for the wingnut course.

But now we get to the really fragrant idiocy. Stranahan followed up with another post full of ranting insults: LGF Is Actually Hallucinating On #Weinergate. This one immediately spread throughout the right wing blogosphere.

Well, someone was definitely hallucinating — but it wasn’t me. Stranahan posted a screenshot from my post (he added a cheesy ragged border and drop shadow, I guess to show off his mad graphic skillz):

And he claimed that I mistook a menu sign for a computer. But did I?

Here’s what I wrote:

One of those people was right wing flamethrower Ann Coulter. Here’s Anthony’s photo of Coulter reacting to the picture; notice that his computer is apparently there, but Breitbart is nowhere to be seen.

Notice: at no point in my post did I identify the menu board as a computer. This is a pure assumption by Stranahan — he saw the menu board in the picture and simply leaped to the conclusion that I was referring to it, when I wrote that Coulter was reacting to the picture and that Breitbart’s computer was “apparently there.”

Breitbart’s computer was “apparently there” because Ann Coulter was reacting to the Weiner photo. Was it a cell phone, not a computer? Could be, but the distinction is ridiculously trivial — and the claim that I misidentified a menu board as a computer is simply false.

This is a perfect example of a dishonest argument: focusing on a tiny detail, claiming it’s incorrect, then doing a victory dance and pretending that the entire argument has been debunked.

And by the way, modern smartphones are computers, if we’re really going to get pedantic about it.

The important point in my post is that Breitbart was being incredibly irresponsible, showing the penis photo to anyone who asked to see it while out drinking with his buddies. But Stranahan focuses on the insignificant detail, in order to convince his wingnut readers that I was “hallucinating” — and jumps to a conclusion that is absolutely not warranted from the words I wrote.

I don’t expect him to correct this, because that’s not what right wing bloggers do. Instead, this will inevitably become an article of faith among that crowd. But the desperate attempt to deflect attention away from Andrew Breitbart’s irresponsible, sleazy behavior is transparent to anyone who isn’t drunk on wingnut Koolaid.