From an American Thinker article, Heraclitus said it first:
Heraclitus said it first / November 17th, 2005The Greek historian Heraclitus observed, “A man’s character is his fate.” I’ve always found that to be true. I’d go further though. I think it is as applicable to institutions as it is to individuals.
If I’m right, the end result of the Wilson/Plame hoax – described by Christopher Hitchens as “the non-commission of non-crimes and the non-outing of a non-covert CIA bureaucrat” – will be how it has exposed this fact: Our major media have been so hopelessly corrupted by partisanship that, either willingly or through credulousness, they have become little more than an agent of the Democratic Party, utterly unworthy of our trust and damaging to our real national security needs.
And if you think that’s strong, the Wen Ho Lee case will resolve any possible lingering doubts that that is the case.
[…] And it is certain that in the trial of this case we will learn whether Governor Richardson and other Clinton appointed officials tried to play pin the tail on the Chinese nuclear scientist to divert attention from their own inattention to national security at a vital American facility. Or,even worse, as some have suggested, to muddy the search for how the Chinese obtained this vital information. Richardson and others have been identified in court papers as the likely sources of the leaks against Dr. Lee. In sworn testimony Richardson has denied he was a media source for the reports about Dr. Lee.
In the process of that case we will learn if the reporters were as apparently careless or gullible as they were when they broadcast Wilson’s patent lies and as mendacious as they were when they refused to correct the record when it was clear he had been lied to them or they had, as Wilson said “misreported” his statements.
By now, we know the principal reporters in the Wilson/Plame gambit were engaged, if not at the outset, then from the issuance of the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee (SSCI) report, in a partisan stunt. For there is simply no explanation for not clarifying the record from that point. And surely Pincus (if not Nicolas Kristof of the New York Times, for example), knew full well the process by which the National Intelligence Estimate is prepared and that the White House is bound to adhere to this, the collective wisdom of the nation’s security agencies.
Joe Blow may think the President could pull the wool over the eyes of Congress by making up claims not in there. If you’re reading this, you’re smart enough to know that’s bunkum. Fine for the fever swamp denizens. Preposterous to the grown ups.If there were errors in the NIE, they came from further down, and as the Silberman/Robb Commission observed those errors were not the result of any manipulation of the NIE, an assessment which was shared it seems by every intelligence service with which the U.S.maintains good links.
Why do I think the Wen Ho Lee case will only add to the exposure of the press’ duplicity? I’ve been watching their shennanigans and anticipating how Libby’s lawyers will reveal the incestuous interrelations between the reporters and the Democrats. I believe we will see the same kind of discreditable behavior in the Lee case as we have (and I believe we will continue to see) in the Wilson one.
[…] Thanks to the disastrous New York Times legal strategy, the D.C. Circuit of Appeals dealt a major blow to a reporter’s ability to protect his sources. Prosecutors everywhere will now be more inclined to call reporters to testify, under threat of prison time. And if Mr. Libby’s case goes to trial, at least three reporters will be called as witnesses for the prosecution. Just wait until defense counsel starts examining their memories and reporting habits, not to mention the dominant political leanings in the newsrooms of NBC, Time magazine and the New York Times....
Clarice Feldman is a lawyer in Washington, DC. [My ellipses and emphasis]
