More complaints from the left... (624 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -1 on 8 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <jcutter.at.gmail.com> (View user info) at 2004-09-18 20:22:04 EDT
"'I understand that people want to protect their sources, but we're dealing with the alleged forgery of government documents to influence a presidential race during war,' DeLay told reporters. 'This isn't politics as usual. It's dangerous and possibly criminal.'" (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/15/bush.guard.memos/index.html)
1. CNN columnist Robert Novak protected his sources when the NAME OF A CIA OPERATIVE was leaked. No outrage from the right, just a flaky "Leaks of classified information are bad things" out of Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/index.html). Now there is pressure building to reveal the source of a memo concerning military service that might or might not be forged? Shouldn't the forgery be proved before demanding the revelation of its sources? You might ask, "shouldn't its authenticity be proved before airing this story?" That's a valid question, but a different discussion.
2. Undisputedly forged documents were used in an attempt to convince the world to go to war (at the time they were invoked, there was a good deal of speculation whether they were forged, see the interview cited below). Former ambassador Joseph Wilson was the first to suspect the information in the forged documents was false (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/07/07/cnna.wilson/), and was later critical when his research was ignored, and the information was included in the State of the Union address anyway. I don't think there was as much outrage and curiousity about forged documents used to scare the world into war as there is now about an allegedly forged memo, which might or might not have been a document of little importance from 30 years ago.
When the identity of Wilson's wife, the CIA operative mentioned above, was revealed (probably in response to Wilson's criticism), Robert Novak protected his sources, and the investigation into that was as flimsy as the one into the document forgeries. I wonder why Tom DeLay didn't ever consider these events "dangerous and possibly criminal"?
User Reviews
Submitted by Zeccs (user info) at 2004-09-19 16:11:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I've seen more interesting things written on the back of cereal boxes.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-09-19 15:52:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Sorry, bud. Am I meant to care?
Submitted by PatheticCapitalistFuck (user info) at 2004-09-18 22:08:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Uh, -2 Die?
I think?
Submitted by cigar (user info) at 2004-09-18 21:55:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-18 20:52:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
It's a shitty first post either way...
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-09-18 20:51:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Spooner (user info) at 2004-09-18 20:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I can't figure our your political leaning, so I don't know whether to -2 or +2 this...
0
Submitted by gibberish (user info) at 2004-09-18 20:30:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Huh?