Wolfowitz: I don't think so. I mean, I think we were working from, as I told you, one of the most widely shared intelligence assessments I know of.
DeYoung: And even if we end up not finding...?
Wolfowitz: We're a long way from...
Kellems: We can't go there. Karen, come on! [Laughter] That was a trick question.DeYoung: Oh, it was? I'm sorry. I didn't mean it to be.
Kellems: I was just kidding.
DeYoung: No, I didn't.
Wolfowitz: No, there was no oversell"
Trick question? Apparently, Ms. DeYoung didn't check her "empire's own reality" and "history's actors" handbook of allowed questions.
National Review and the Weekly Standard:
Thereafter, pundits and writers engaged the debate to explain what Wolfowitz said. Two are presented as examples of the debate positions supporting the Administration below (from the National Review and from the Rupert Murdoch, of FOX fame, owned Weekly Standard).
On June 2, 2003, the National Review carried a story by James S. Robbins titled "Vanity Unfair". In part, he wrote:
"William Kristol's Weekly Standard article has all of the details, so I don't need to repeat them... There is something of a straw man being erected in the debate, namely the suggestion that Saddam's WMD arsenal was the only reason for the war. Certainly, it was the most highly debated issue. But was it the reason? No, and no one in the administration ever said that it was."
The Kristol article that Mr. Robbins' refers to is found online in the Weekly Standard as, "What Wolfowitz Really Said" The truth behind the Vanity Fair "scoop" by William Kristol (dated June 9, 2003) .
First, a fundamental question must be asked: Since neither of these publications are blogs, but rather magazines with an online presence purportedly representing Conservative thought, how could a writer refer to a competing periodical, says it contains "all the details" (presumptively making his own superfluous), and then provide a link from his employers site to his competitor's site?
Major publications often refer to other articles, but generally provide additional "details" or a much more cogent explanation of same. Questions should arise as to timing, coordination, and glaring ommission (see transcripts of interview with the author of the Vanity Fair article below). *** Note the dates appended to the 2 articles: Robbins (June 2, 2003) and Kristol (June 9, 2003). An explanation has been offered for the fact that the Robbins article (which refers to Kristol's) is dated 7 days prior to Kristol's. In order to avoid turning a debate over a substantive issue (the war and what was said to make a case for war) into a debate over publishing dates, it is left to the reader to treat the dates as he or she would.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
