neljapäev, juuli 01, 2004
Senility
Bob Novak is mad.
I can't find his new column online, but in the Washington Post today he complains about "urban legends" of the war on terror. Specifically, he's upset that George Stephanapolous asked Condi Rice about the reports that the Bush administration could have attacked Zarqawi before the war, but didn't. Rice, of course, denied it. Novak then cites several military officials who have said during hearings that they don't know anything about it. He points out that the people quoted in the original story are a friend of Richard Clarke and a Democrat. You would think that where this is all going is that the story isn't true. That's really the only point the column could have. Until you reach the last paragraph, wherein Novak admits that the NBC reporter who broke the story stands by it and that at least one military official has acknowledged that an attack on Zarqawi's camp was considered and rejected.
I have to give Novak credit for including the contradictory evidence, because he usually is pretty willing to ignore facts he doesn't like. But given that the story has been confirmed, what the hell is his point?
|
Bob Novak is mad.
I can't find his new column online, but in the Washington Post today he complains about "urban legends" of the war on terror. Specifically, he's upset that George Stephanapolous asked Condi Rice about the reports that the Bush administration could have attacked Zarqawi before the war, but didn't. Rice, of course, denied it. Novak then cites several military officials who have said during hearings that they don't know anything about it. He points out that the people quoted in the original story are a friend of Richard Clarke and a Democrat. You would think that where this is all going is that the story isn't true. That's really the only point the column could have. Until you reach the last paragraph, wherein Novak admits that the NBC reporter who broke the story stands by it and that at least one military official has acknowledged that an attack on Zarqawi's camp was considered and rejected.
I have to give Novak credit for including the contradictory evidence, because he usually is pretty willing to ignore facts he doesn't like. But given that the story has been confirmed, what the hell is his point?
