Posted on 08/05/2005 7:44:20 PM PDT by STARWISE
Amidst the vacuum of Judy Miller saying nothing and the misshapen vessel of Bob Novak's obfuscations, informed speculation swirls, on this site among many. At bottom, we wonder if Miller -- perhaps the private citizen singly most responsible for the current quagmire -- is admirably upholding a principle underlying one of the few brakes on an unbridled administration.
Or has she realized, potential book deal and all, the salutary power of a four-month stint in reputation rehab? Or just maybe, as has been recently and deliciously floated, is she protecting her own Tinkers to Evans to Chance role as a leaker herself in the Plame affair? Ball's in your court, Mr. Fitzgerald, though Miller's fate is small beer amidst the even more tantalizing rumors of big-fish indictments lurking ahead.
Waiting, we pass time parsing Miller's unfathomables (as well as wondering why Joe Wilson didn't publish his critique months before the Iraq invasion rather than months after).
(snip)
Back when Miller was being lauded and denounced for making much of the baseball-capped scientist who she never actually spoke to, but who nevertheless revealed -- to her Army censors anyway -- significant Iraqi WMD activity as well as Saddam's link to Al Qaeda (of the latter, Rush Limbaugh averred: "This kind of wraps it all up, doesn't it."), I published this piece on Miller's role as an on-call "expert" associated with pro-war hawk Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum.
(snip)
Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in June, 2000 Pipes advocated potential military action against Syria, referencing a forum report on America's "undisputed military supremacy" which precludes the "specter of huge [American] casualties." That was mere prelude to his plans for Iraq; in December, 2001 one of his regular New York Post columns was headlined: "On to Baghdad?: Yes -- The Risks Are Overrated."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Thanks. So Wilson was indeed using Saddam's possession of WMD as an antiwar talking point at that time. Apparently this was reversed after Bush's SOTU when the new antiwar talking point became Saddam's non-possession of WMD. Consistency is evidently no barrier to propaganda for Joseph Wilson: for Wilson the end justifies the means, and the facts will be made to conform to the end. But, according to him, Bush is the Orwellian one who manipulates intelligence to generate a prearranged outcome. I believe Dr. Freud would call that projection. Maybe Joseph Wilson should change his last name to Goebbels.
And what makes that a 'good possibility?'
The author is a pro-doper. He's probably a paid stooge of George Soros.
Salon Directory
http://dir.salon.com/topics/daniel_forbes/
but there's a good chance they won't
Chance was on first. ;o)
I only read three paragraphs and my head hurts. That was one of the most incoherant things I have read in a long time.
"Antiwar", huh?
Did you see this op ed from Wilson, published Oct. 13, 2002 in the San Jose Mercury News?:
(excerpt)
"You could argueand some liberals havethat deterrence alone could work again now, and that neither war nor tough inspections are needed. But effective deterrence requires that world leaders issue ultimatums backed by the credible threat of force, which they have not been willing to do so far."
"Antiwar", huh?
Did you see this op ed from Wilson, published Oct. 13, 2002 in the San Jose Mercury News?:
(excerpt)
"You could argueand some liberals havethat deterrence alone could work again now, and that neither war nor tough inspections are needed. But effective deterrence requires that world leaders issue ultimatums backed by the credible threat of force, which they have not been willing to do so far."
I did see that, but didn't recall that particular line; thanks for the quotation. I also remember that before Wilson wrote that, he had joined Marc Ginsberg's Alliance for American Leadership and at Ginsberg's arrangement was going around the talk show circuit representing the opposition to Iraq intervention. Very curious.
An aggressive U.N.-sanctioned campaign to disarm Iraqbolstered by a militarily supported inspection processwould combine the best of the U.S. and U.N. approaches, a robust disarmament policy with the international legitimacy the United States seeks. Secretary of State Colin Powell is pushing the Security Council to adopt such an approach.
But he will have to overcome French and Russian concerns that other harsh demands in the U.S.British draft resolution leave Saddam little room to save face and avoid war.
One of the strongest arguments for a militarily supported inspection plan is that it doesnt threaten Saddam with extinction, a threat that could push him to fight back with the very weapons were seeking to destroy. If disarmament is the goal, Saddam can be made to understand that only his arsenal is at stake, not his survival.
Concerns about Sadaam saving face ... DIPlomacy . .. sheesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.