MARK'S REMARKS
...CORRECTIONS AND FURTHER EXPLANATION....In an earlier story on WMD, titled, Who's Unpatriotic?....., I challenged the claim of Mr. Paul Krugmann, who attacks the Bush administration on Iraq issues. I would like to say I was incorrect in saying that the book Fortunate Son, was pulled off of shelves and was not available. That was not totally correct, as our liberal friend Eric pointed out. What Eric did not point out, was that Fortunate Son was pulled by its original publisher because the man had no verifiable sources, and changed his story numerous times when asked about his unnamed sources. Then, it was revealed that Hatfield was a convicted felon who had faced charges for hiring someone to kill his female boss. Hatfield continued to seek publishers, but the cat was out of the bag. It took four more tries to get his book published. Now, it is back on shelves, but it has been through four publishing houses to do so. His sources were never verified by anyone in the mainstream press, and he first said his interviews were by phone conversation, then he said that one person always had his cup spitoon with him. With flip flops like this, one can see why this book is pretty much discredited, especially since it relies on the personal credibility of someone who has no documentation and who has been convicted of FELONIES twice, including solicitation of murder (Kathy Sawyer, Unfortunate Son: The Embezzlement, The Burglary, The Conspiracy to Murder?", Washington Post, March 19, 2000; Jenny Lynn Bader, "Publishing, the Moral Mirror of Politics," New York Times, Oct. 24, 1999; These articles accessed at Northern Kentucky University Library, September 27, 2003; and http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2002_01_13_dish_archive.html.)
Also, Mr. Krugmann has some credibility issues. In an earlier editorial, Mr. Krugmann sought to tie a conspiracy of campaign funding around the neck of Mr. Bush because of the contributions that Ken Lay of Enron made to him. If any group should know about bad campaign financing, it would be liberals. However, Mr. Krugmann, shortly before his charges and before the bottom fell out of Enron, was paid a $50,000 "consulting fee", and then after getting paid had sparkling things to say about Enron in a Fortune magazine article, where he compared them to Goldman Sachs, the Gold Standard of investment banking, and that Enron "was making freewheeling markets possible." This from someone who is paid by a paper to be an economist and to watch the market. Of course, when Mr. Krugmann is proven wrong, he attacks Mr. Bush and Enron, calling Mr. Bush "the People Enron put in the White House." How shameful and his own past shows he has little credibility in this matter, so I discount what he is saying now (Krugmann, New York Times, "Fiscal Fantasy," January 22, 2002; Krugmann, Fortune, The Ascent of E-Man; RIP: The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, May 29, 1999; all of these accessed as above).
THE JOE WILSON CASE
Over at Liberal Eric, he talks about the CIA requesting a probe into activities that may have revealed a top secret CIA operative, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Read the story here.
I refer you to the middle of the story. The White House has repeatedly denied being the source, Novak has not said the White House was the source. The only people doing the charging are "other reporters have told Wilson it was the White House who did the leaking." Come on, other reporters? Who? How do they know Novak's sources? The media does not like Mr. Bush, as evidenced by any search of campaign articles and the treatment of him during the 2000 campaign. This is mere conjecture that has led to an investigation. I am sad that the CIA feels that they should do this strictly on a "he said, she said" type argument. Just because someone in the Administration leaks it, does not mean that Bush is behind it. It is extreme supposition and conspiracy theorying worthy of Oliver Stone to think this. In regards to the placement of the whole "Africa nuke" argument, I have not researched the veracity of Wilson's claim, but I do know the President's staff said that should have been removed from the speech, and that George Tenet of CIA has taken responsibility for it. Of course, no one ever made a mistake in the Clinton Admin, you know, like not taking the offers of getting Osama Bin Laden turned over to usup to 3 years before 9/11, etc., did they? Instead of levying charges while the investigation takes place, I urge people to reserve judgement until the results therein come out. Instead of being swayed by personal vitriol toward someone, why not let the Investigators do their job. As we do not have a puppet at Justice, like Reno, I think a full and fair investigation will be done.
