"because the source is the Weekly Standard, this interview is a complete fabrication"

Never said that, never even implied that.

Yes. You did. Unless you have an alternative explanation for the following incredulous sentence:

"Yet at the same time, the source you posted is the weekly standard?"

What else could you possibly mean other than that the article was suspect because it was printed there?

And you're ducking the discussion, because frankly, you have absolutely no basis for argument other than "the man must be lying." I'm at least willing to consider that he might be telling the truth, and that it's worth looking into.

I've been leaning on Kevin at Calpundit for having the same biased thresholds for deciding credibility. He spent weeks dissecting the Bush AWOL controversy down to the molecular level, including detailed reasons why it is possible that men who worked with Bush didn't really do so. But when the woman in the Kerry "intern" flap (which for the record, I don't believe either) issued a simple statement of denial, Drum's assessment was, and I quote, "I guess we can stick a fork in this one." Enough said, case closed. No examination of the statement, no wondering about the sudden turnaround in the position of her father, nothing.

Almost everyone will slant their assessment of evidence based on how they want the results to turn out. It's human. But let's not pretend we're doing otherwise, okay? It's irritating at the very least.