Conventional wisdom holds that those on the Left are not people of faith. However, recent evidence suggests that some hold a deep and abiding faith resting securely on a foundation of anti-Bush animosity and sustained by a zeal to suspend sensible skepticism.
In 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a NY Times op-ed piece accusing the President of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. In particular, he said that the presidents statement that, The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. was false. How did Wilson know? According to Wilson, he was sent to Niger to investigate Vice-President Cheneys concerns about Iraqi attempts to make a uranium purchase and found no such evidence.
Evidence since then unequivocally demonstrates that Wilson was prevaricating from the beginning. Independent assessments have determined that Bush was not lying but relaying his best intelligence. Moreover, Wilson was not directly sent at the behest of the Vice-President. The choice of Wilson was a pedestrian case of nepotism. Despite venomous denials by Wilson, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that he was sent on his trip to Niger based on his wifes recommendation. Further, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that Wilsons oral trip report actually buttressed the assumption that Iraq was seeking nuclear material.
While the White House was rebutting Wilsons now demonstrably false claims, reporter Robert Novak wrote that Wilsons wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Wilson and the Left erupted in a joyful noise claiming that the White House was illegally leaking the name of a covert agent to punish Wilsons wife as a way to get at Wilson. David Corn of the Left-wing Nation proclaimed the incident A White House Smear designed to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? The more mainstream Time Magazine asked if the White House rebuttals of Wilsons claims constituted a A War on Wilson?
For legal purposes, Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, so the release of her name was not a crime. While the Left had argued that the release of Plames name were orchestrated by the Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, Newsweek reports what has been rumored from some time: Richard Armitage leaked Plames name. Armitage has now publicly admitted his role. Armitage was Colin Powells number two man at the Department of State who is not a political operative and not particularly supportive of the Bush Administrations Iraq policy. Armitage was apparently a gossip who spoke a little too cavalierly, if truthfully.
Even the Washington Post has finally realized that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plames CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming — falsely, as it turned out — that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
The entire episode also reflects poorly on Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counselor appointed to determine who leaked the information. He knew the identity of the leaker the near outset of the investigation. He should have summarily ended the now rather pathetic affair.
One does not expect much from the Nation so their attack on the administration can be dismissed as partisan wishful thinking. It is more shameful that the mainstream press credulously, even eagerly, swallowed the Wilson story without the encompassing skepticism they usually muster. The truth is they wanted the Bush Administration and Karl Rove, in particular, to be caught in a scandal. Scandals, especially Republican ones, are so fun. The entire Plame story played so seamlessly into the narrative that Karl Rove is an evil political genius, and Joseph Wilson is the sort of suave operator so popular at Washington parties that the charges just had to be true.
The only thing that remains is the civil suit that Wilsons are bringing against members of the Bush Administration. It will be amusing to hear how the Wilsons were harmed by the release of Plames name. We should all be so fortunate to be forced to accept a $2.5 million book advance in lieu of a government job.
Speaking Truth or Error to Power
Sunday, September 10th, 2006The phrase speak truth to power, has found its way into the common vocabulary of virtually any group seeking to criticize the government. Use of the phrase is somewhat self-aggrandizing since it presumes the correctness of the speaker and a heroic stance toward power.
The phrase originated in a Quaker pamphlet issued in 1955. The pamphlet offered a non-violent alternative to the Cold War. It argued that anything other than their pacifist approach would fail. As a consequence of the Cold War, they said, American prestige abroad has declined seriously, and we have lost much of the good will that was formerly ours.
The vantage point provided by 50 years suggests that the Quaker alternative was not quite so true, or at least not the only viable solution to Soviet expansion. Yet, we can also agree that we are collectively better off that their alternative was passionately presented. Speaking error as well as truth to power is important.
This notion is the key to understanding the value of the First Amendment. We do not want the government to decide what is true so we permit all voices to make their case confident that the truth with ultimately be recognized. Indeed, the formulation speak truth to power can unintentionally undermine the First Amendment. If we only permit truth to be spoken to power, the government could presumably use its version of truth to crowd out or suppress other voices.
The principle that all voices should be able to speak is what makes the September 7 letter from Senate Democrats to Walt Disney Company so pernicious. The issue a hand is the mini-series The Path to 9/11 to be broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Apparently, Democrats are upset because they believe the mini-series unfairly portrays President Clinton as being so distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair that he did not devote sufficient attention to the growing threat of Osama Bin Laden. A number of opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden were lost.
Put aside for a moment whether Senate Democrats are rightly or wrongly upset about the mini-series. Nay, let us assume for our purposes here that the mini-series is grossly inaccurate and unfair. Then, by all means, opponents should make a loud public case against the mini-series. Show where the mini-series fails to provide an accurate picture of the years before 9/11. Such a critique falls within the legitimate bounds of debate.
While the Senate letter did criticize the mini-series directly, its second paragraph tries to intimidate the Walt Disney Company (the owner of ABC) into pulling or editing the mini-series. The Senators remind the company that:
The not so subtle implication is that if the mini-series is not made to conform with the governments (or at least these Senators) understanding of the truth, then perhaps ABCs broadcast license could be in jeopardy. It is unfortunate that the instinctive reaction of some on the Left is totalitarian.
At this point, we do not know how or whether ABC will alter the mini-series whether in response to legitimate critiques or out of intimidation. In all likelihood, the protest by Senate Democrats may backfire by calling more attention to Clintons lack of response to bin Laden then the mini-series could have alone.
Posted in Law, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »