The following is an excerpt from the Weekly Standard by William Kristol who also brought us the Project for the New American Century which, in turn, brought us the war in Iraq:
Those unfamiliar with the National Review can see many of their members on television as pundits and see their writings in numerous publications. The following is a brief listing of some of the more often seen (on television and print) apologists for the war and excusers of a lack of WMD presence in Iraq:
Rich Lowry (NR Editor), David Frum (former speechwriter for President George W. Bush), Jonah Goldberg, NRO (Editor-at-Large), Kate O'Beirne (all of whom continuously repeat the line that WMD's were not the only reason for the war in numerous articles and in numerous appearances on television).
The Weekly Standard's line-up can be found alternatively in their publication, on television, in the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and as targets and/or potential targets of investigations.
To get a flavor for the breeding ground that fosters these "journalist" and "opinion writers", an interview given by a Weekly Standard senior writer, Matt Labash, is helpful. It provides some insight into the thinking that drives these current influential policy makers:
Subjective journalism, feeding the rage, a racket, and having their cake and eating it too. One cannot argue with their success.
The Robbins and Kristol articles (and others like them) did not address the explanation of the interview as offered by the Vanity Fair writer. He, himself, gave an interview to CNN about this subject. The transcripts are dated 5-30-2003.
The writer of the Wolfowitz piece speaks:
Relevant excerpts from the transcripts are as follows:
?Let's be clear: Though Paul Wolfowitz has friends and admirers at The Weekly Standard, we would be surprised and more than a little distressed had he actually said what he's supposed to have said in this instance... In short, Wolfowitz made the perfectly sensible observation that more than just WMD was of concern, but that among several serious reasons for war, WMD was the issue about which there was widest domestic (and international) agreement.?
Those unfamiliar with the National Review can see many of their members on television as pundits and see their writings in numerous publications. The following is a brief listing of some of the more often seen (on television and print) apologists for the war and excusers of a lack of WMD presence in Iraq:
Rich Lowry (NR Editor), David Frum (former speechwriter for President George W. Bush), Jonah Goldberg, NRO (Editor-at-Large), Kate O'Beirne (all of whom continuously repeat the line that WMD's were not the only reason for the war in numerous articles and in numerous appearances on television).
The Weekly Standard's line-up can be found alternatively in their publication, on television, in the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and as targets and/or potential targets of investigations.
To get a flavor for the breeding ground that fosters these "journalist" and "opinion writers", an interview given by a Weekly Standard senior writer, Matt Labash, is helpful. It provides some insight into the thinking that drives these current influential policy makers:
JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?
Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.
Subjective journalism, feeding the rage, a racket, and having their cake and eating it too. One cannot argue with their success.
The Robbins and Kristol articles (and others like them) did not address the explanation of the interview as offered by the Vanity Fair writer. He, himself, gave an interview to CNN about this subject. The transcripts are dated 5-30-2003.
The writer of the Wolfowitz piece speaks:
Relevant excerpts from the transcripts are as follows:
Now, the Pentagon, you just saw in Jamie's piece, is saying he is taking that out of context. Did he say that? Did he not say that and what was the nuance that you took it as, as you talked to Paul Wolfowitz?
TANNENHAUS: Well, what's important to know is that this comment of the deputy secretaries came out of a slightly earlier discussion we had in the same interview. It was a very long interview. In fact, I was told it may have been the longest uninterrupted interview he's given, about 90 minutes, the third of three sessions.
And in it the deputy secretary discussed how there were aspects of the war in Iraq that were being overlooked, that its benefits that had come from the war that no one was talking about.
One of them that was America could now remove its troops from Saudi Arabia because Saddam Hussein was no longer there as a threat.
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).
