It's pretty funny for the Wall Street Journal editorial page (subs. req'd; alt. free link) to be repeatedly complaining that everyone was out to get Paul Wolfowitz because of Iraq and then construct a criticism of Condi Rice for her supposed insuffficient defence of him as follows --
Her behavior in this case is reminiscent of her pre-emptive capitulation on the famous "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union, words that Britain's Butler Report later concluded were "well-founded" but which now are a defining myth of the left's "Bush lied" theology.
Apart from anything else, the speed of the US disengagement from the 16 words is the opposite of its behavior with respect to Wolfie, where they should have bailed out weeks ago. But the analogy does raise, again, the question -- will Tony Blair ever reveal what the supporting evidence for the 16 words claim actually was?
UPDATE: One point of similarity between the 16 words and the Wolfowitz scandal is the tactic of the reactionary right in both cases to launch personal attacks on critics and their motives rather than deal with the substance of the allegations.
No comments:
Post a Comment