Aha, you say, but why did Wolfowitz take so long to release these nonincriminating [see first link again] internal memoranda? Who acts so defensively if they have nothing to hide? I have no private information to impart here. But it could be that two grown-up people, both with previous marriages and with growing children, did not feel much like undergoing yet another round of "disclosure." For the sake of apparent propriety, they had already had to submit to some rather exorbitant demands. That's just my guess. But I didn't choose to say anything until I had seen the relevant papers, which are clear and conclusive.
• "I have no private information..."
• "But it could be that..."
• "That's just my guess..."
• "...clear and conclusive."
All the children sing: "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong..."
Hitchens admission that he doesn't know what he's talking about on his way to a "clear and conclusive" conclusion aside, notice that he doesn't mention what those "nonincriminating" documents showed: that Wolfowitz lied. Add to that what he lied about: his "noninvolvement" in his girlfriend's raise. How do you leave that out? You don't, unless you're Christopher Hitchens, apparently.
Oh yeah, how do you leave out the fact that Wolfowitz admitted wrongdoing, albeit calling it a "mistake" rather than a misuse of his posittion and a lie about it afterwards? You don't, unless..
He also doesn't mention this business. "Nonincriminating," I guess.
No comments:
Post a Comment