I was reading Bob Novak's op-ed in the print edition of The Washington Post, and decided I wanted to write about it. So I went to the Post's web site, and it's nowhere to be found. The other four op-eds in today's paper were there, but not Novak's. Why is that?
I'm an "anti-conspiritarian," so I'm not trying to impute some evil motivation, but this makes no sense to me.
Anyway, Novak's column today is titled The transformation of Richard Clarke, and he recounts Clarke's obvious (to me, at least) change from a hard-working anti-terrorism bureaucrat into a Kerry campaigner.
Why are Clarke's inconsistencies being ignored by the mainstream (non-conservative) press? Does anyone believe that if William Cohen, a Republican who was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense, had resigned from the Clinton administration and fallaciously gone on the attack on his former employer, that the press would fail to point out, in painstaking detail, where he had said one thing in the past and was singing a completely different tune today?
But we're not plagued with a liberal media. Nope, not here.
