a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Saturday, June 07, 2003 The Transcriptual FallacyJosh Marshall is on a roll -- in fact he's rolling faster than I can keep up with him -- and his latest coup is a bit of reporting that wonders whether that Vanity Fair interview posted by the Pentagon wasn't scrubbed of a few details. I can't help but notice that Glenn Reynolds, who was touting the whole idea of posting transcripts to fact-check articles exactly like the Vanity Fair piece, has maintained blogging silence. (Well, New York Times thing is a big story. But come on, Glenn.) Marshall's complaint is that the Vanity Fair story reveals Paul Wolfowitz to be a fan of Laurie Mylroie's -- as we've known and reported for a long time on Radio Free Mike -- as well as an Okalahoma City conspiracy theorist. Marshall thinks both theories are wild. He guesses the Pentagon deleted references to them from the transcript to keep Wolfowitz's wild notions from embarrassing the Department of Defense.I never thought those theories were wild, but then I'm no expert. And since Mylroie's story gave cover to the whole idea of invading Iraq back in September 2001, I want to see it aired and shaken, like a musty sheet. The Pentagon, apparently, doesn't. UPDATE: Or maybe it's Wolfowitz who doesn't. He seems to have spoken off the record about Mylroie. Long-time readers of this blog know I found Mylroie's theory compelling but not air-tight. I suspected out loud that it was a major unspoken motivation for the war, and wondered why it wasn't being analyzed and debated about on TV or at more length in the press. Even after the war, Wolfowitz is shy about discussing it. Why? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 12:01 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
