I'm not terribly interested in turning this blog into a strictly political enterprise. Those that know me know my politics, which are conservative on virtually every issue. There are more than enough political bloggers out there that focus strictly on the discipline; I'm more interested in making this considerably more diverse. That said, I must get a few things off my chest about this Eric Alterman character.
I'm not sure when I came across this guy, but I've been reading his columns for probably about four or five years. This guy is allegedly a doctored professor (at CUNY, if I'm not mistaken), but if his writings are any indication of his intellect and rationale, this guy is clearly lacking in both departments. A few months back he posted that he would no longer be reading his own e-mail because of the "coarsening" (his word) effect of some of the hate mail he received on a regular basis. Fair enough. I certainly empathized with this sentiment, as I'd seen Andrew Sullivan post the same thing. However, Sullivan said that this would not deter him from his e-mail reading nor posting what his feelings on any number of issues. Mind you, I have my issues w. Sullivan, not the least of which is his ideological capitulation and endorsement of Kerry. (He claimed the reasons were multiple, but his excited posts regarding Bush and the FMA were the real reasons, though Sullivan is loath to admit it.) But Alterman is different. Sullivan can dabble in hyperbole from time to time, but he is not a serial cheapshot artist; Alterman is. Thus Alterman chooses post ugly innuendos, take cheap shots, and perpetuate half-truths to flat out falsehoods on his website, yet flatly refuses to even entertain any feedback because it might be "coarsening". (Roger Waters wrote a song about this. It's called "The Bravery of Being Out of Range") Thus Alterman, too thin-skinned to read his own "coarsening" e-mail (save the e-mail that lauds him for his "bravery" and "insight"...in other words, he only wants sycophants and suck-ups around him) launches cheap-shots at the likes of Andrew Sullivan, calling him "Little Roy" and a "McCarthyite" (which I don't think is pejoritive, but is intended to be). Sullivan may be any number of things, and his posts have enraged me from time to time, but a "McCarthyite" he is not. And to Sullivan's credit, he never gets nasty or uncivil, even to his ideological enemies. Not so Alterman. Which brings me to this topic: Eric Alterman's insistence that William Safire is a liar. Specifically, a liar about the following:
"...we note the retirement of William Safire, a conservative who sacrificed his hard-won moral and intellectual independence on the altar of the Bush administration’s ideological extremism; who never deviated from his defense of the anti-Semitic ravings of his patron, Richard Nixon, and who never apologized to Times readers for lying to them about an imaginary meeting in Prague between Iraq and Al Qaida that he falsely termed to be an 'undisputed fact' [bold ours]. "
I emboldened the above because this piece of the 9/11 puzzle has never been sufficiently put to bed. I write this because to this day, almost four years after this alleged meeting between the Iraqi diplomat al-Ani and Mohammad Atta, Czech intelligence (BIS) has never backed off their contention that this meeting did take place. Czech Undersecretary of the Interior Stanislav Gross, Asst. Ambassador to the UN Hynek Kamieniec, and (then) Czech president Haclav Havel have all stated that they believe this meeting took place. (Havel put it at a 70% probability that they observed Atta and al-Ani in Prague together.) Edward Jay Epstein and Stephen Hayes have both wrote in-depth pieces on this, and though "unnamed sources" within the CIA and State Department have said that it didn't take place, the only on the record sources that said that it did were the three aforementioned Czech officials. Anyway, I wrote to Eric two days ago to get his take on this:
Eric,
You've have stated many, many times that William Safire lied when he said that the meeting between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place. I'm assuming that you're basing this conclusion on the unnamed sources within the CIA (and other government agencies) that claimed that no meeting ever took place. However, you have repeatedly failed to address the contention, by the Czech government itself, that this meeting DID take place on April 8, 2001. Both Hynek Kmonicek (part of the Czech diplomatic delegation to the UN) and Stanislav Gross (Undersec. of Interior for the Czech government) have both gone on record as saying that BIS (Czech intel. agency) observed a meeting between Atta and Iraqi diplomat al-Ani, and have never backed off their statements. Vaclav Havel never backed off this contention either, and the Iraqi diplomat in question was ejected from Czech Republic for "activities incompatible with diplomatic duties". It stands to reason that these are things you should clarify on your blog in regards to Safire, because it is rather odd that the Czech government hasn't backed off their story, yet you charge that Safire has lied repeatedly in regards to it. Hopefully you can address this discrepancy and eliminate any confusion regarding this story once and for all.
I've checked Eric's website several times over the last two days since I sent this missive. No word yet. Hopefully he didn't find my letter too "coarse" to answer. In the meantime, he published two letters today from the same toadies that write in a dozen times a month. Shocker.
Spitfire
No comments:
Post a Comment