Andrew Sullivan is back and wastes little time in deconstructing Dave Weigel's ridiculous post supporting the idea that Sarah Palin DID give birth to Trig.

From the Daily Dish:
I love Dave Weigel and enjoyed all his posts in my absence and was delighted he took on the Trig question. The aim of the Dish has been to air this debate on all sides in order to get as close as we can to the readily available evidence Sarah Palin insists on keeping from us. Sadly, Dave's posts seemed to me to add nothing empirical to the debate - except an insight into those whose minds are simply closed.

Please do take the time to read ALL of Andrew's post. It does not beat around the bush before debunking the ridiculous argument and completely eviscerating Dave Weigel, as well it should.

It is kind of funny that today is the day that Andrew came back and addressed this because just now as I was driving home from the gym I was pondering the Dave Weigel post myself.

I was very troubled about it the moment that it came out, however since I was busy doing other projects I did not get to take it on myself, instead leaving that job up to the more than capable Litbrit.

But the one thing that really stuck in my craw about the piece, and trust me I choked on a lot of it initially, was the title, "Believing Sarah Palin."

You know personally I am not much of a believer. I am more of a thinker. Somebody who analyzes something from all angles before assigning a definition to it.

The idea that I would CHOOSE to believe something simply because it is convenient, or because everybody else believes it, or perhaps just to fit in, is completely alien to my way of thinking. I simply cannot do that.

I suppose the thing about Weigel's title that I could not digest was the idea that he was essentially declaring his intention to "believe" Sarah Palin rather than to keep an open mind to the possibility that someday new information might be revealed that either proved she DID give birth to Trig, or proved she did NOT.

Isn't that what a REAL journalist would do? I mean despite what you might personally find the most palatable, or the most audience friendly, isn't the truth what all journalists are constantly in search of? How can you find any truth, if you have decided what it is before there is evidence to support it?

Especially when you are dealing with a person who is now famous for her lack of honesty and constant use of misinformation? After all, Geoffrey Dunn's book is called "The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind her Relentless Quest for Power", not exactly a title that is chosen for a book about a person famous for truth telling, now is it?

By the way Dave Weigel also offered a follow up to his pro-Palin post in which he claims that there were many "who told me that Alaskans were well aware of Palin's pregnancy", and he goes on to cite an Alaskan blogger who also confirmed this to him.

My policy is to NEVER question the accuracy of a statement made by one of my friends. However I have interviewed dozens and dozens of people who knew or worked with Sarah Palin, and not ONE of them said they knew she was pregnant until she made her announcement on March 7, 2008. In her book "Going Rogue" Palin says she did not even tell her family until right before she announced it to the media. However I have it on good authority that the first time her family heard about it was AFTER it was announced to the media.

So if even her own family was unaware that she was pregnant, then WHO were these "Alaskans" that "were well aware of Palin's pregnancy?"