|
The war, Joseph Wilson, and other topics
A sampling of recent interesting articles on the war and the Wilson scandal: Amir Taheri explains Al Qaeda’s new strategy: gain power over Muslim countries before attacking the United States. Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media argues that the FBI has failed to find the culprit in the anthrax attacks of two years ago because, as in the Richard Jewell case, they have for political reasons focussed all their attention on the wrong man, investigating an American scientist, Dr. Steven Hatfill, instead of Saddam Hussein. Rep. Peter King explains the war between the CIA and the Administration which is behind the Joseph Wilson scandal. John Podhoretz further elucidates why the Administration may have wanted to identify Wilson’s wife. Finally, in “Adviser to Bush’s Father Redefines Himself as Wary Whistle-Blower,” the New York Times has outdone itself in its own shamelessness. As everyone knows, Wilson had already put himself on record as a flaming anti-administration partisan with such statements as “Under Bush, America has entered one of its periods of madness.” Yet now the Times tries to paint this same Wilson as a pained and reluctant critic of Bush! The article does not even mention Wilson’s notorious statements about his desire to see Karl Rove “frog-marched out of the White House” and his sense that he is on a “personal mission” to destroy religious conservatives and neoconservatives.
Modern liberals want to be radical bomb throwers and appear as responsible members of society at the same time. They are among the worst liars who have ever lived on this earth. Comments
Right about the time that it has become obvious that the Wilson affair will be of no lasting consequence, Thomas Fleming has an article at Chronicles Magazine online about how this may be the undoing of the Bush administration. It really is sad to see the extent to which personal animosities govern such paleoconservative writings. As has been made clear by columnists and talk radio hosts, there is no possible way that the applicable law (shielding the identity of CIA undercover agents) has been violated in this case, because (1) there is no evidence that Wilson’s wife was an undercover agent; she seems to be in an administrative position within the USA only, and (2) when Bob Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked there, he was told that she did in fact work there. The applicable law is quite clear that it is only a crime to reveal the identity of a CIA undercover agent if the CIA itself is taking measures to deny any association with that agent. However, so hopeful for Bush’s demise are some, that they will grasp at any straw. When allegations are disproven, they think they can go on to the next allegation without losing credibility. Posted by: Clark Coleman on October 7, 2003 2:12 PM |