Sometimes Stories Change

by Arlin Tompkins
November 16, 2003

For the last two months, much has been made over the fact that someone exposed former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA agent, effectively blowing her cover with all her covert contacts. I have been attempting to talk to Robert Novak, the conservative journalist that leaked the story, for weeks but Mr. Novak is understandebly busy with other things.

As a result, I did a little bit of research to see if I could figure out how Mr. Novak learned that Mr. Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

Of course, the liberals have been claiming that someone in the Bush administration tipped them off as to Mrs. Wilson's identity as an act of retribution against Mr. Wilson, who not only had failed to confirm Bush's allegation that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa but openly denied it. Mr. Wilson's report, made after a trip to the African nation of Niger, left Bush with a little egg on his face.

The fact that someone leaked the information about Mrs. Wilson, whose real name is Valerie Plame, to Mr. Novak is not in dispute. How Mr. Novak came by this information is.

In an interview given with Newsweek, Mr. Novak stated: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." From this, it sounds like Mr. Novak didn't go looking for this but was approached with it.

Later though, in a television interview, Mr. Novak claimed: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction." From this, it sounds like Mr. Novak uncovered the information while interviewing a "senior administration official."

Now, I know this looks like Mr. Novak has changed his story. On one hand, he says someone gave it to me and on the other hand he says it was uncovered in an inverview. He claims no one from the Bush administration contacted him but also claims he learned the information from a senior administration official.

What the average lay person does not understand is how stories can change. Where sensitive facts are involved, such as in this case, it is often the case, however, that stories will and do change several times before the "official" version of the facts is released. In the news business, we call this "massaging the truth." Some of you may call it by another name - "lying" - but I can assure you that every conservative politician and journalist views truth massaging as a legitimate journalistic tactic.

It's a little like the Jessica Lynch story. Was she bravely rescued or was it staged? We have to wait until the "final cut" of the script is released to know for sure. Even Jessica Lynch won't know what really happened until she's told.

And that's how it is with this case. Bob Novak is a respected conservative journalist. You can tell by the droopy eyelids and fatigued face that he's seen it all and heard it all. Let's give him a break until he works out an "official" version of how he really came upon the information that led to Mrs. Wilson's exposure. I think we owe him that much.

• Tweaking The Constitution (October 12, 2003)
• Bush For 12 More Years (August 29, 2003)
• The Traveling Circus (August 7, 2003)
• The Smear Tactic (July 31, 2003)
• Condi Slapped On Wrist (July 3, 2003)
• O'Reilly Abandons Bush (June 26, 2003)
• What Bush and Chirac Really Said to Each Other (June 5, 2003)
• No Sex For Africans (May 15, 2003)
• Let's Meet Our New Allies (March 18, 2003)
• Clinton/War Protesters Raise Unemployment (March 7, 2003)
• Quit Laughing At Ari! (March 3, 2003
• Ashcroft Just Like McCarthy (February 14, 2003)
• No Mo' NATO (February 11, 2003
• Blame Iraq On Clinton (January 21, 2003
• Lack Of Evidence Is Evidence (January 15, 2003)
• Dick Wins! (January 4, 2003)

by Arlin Tompkins
June 5, 2003

President George W. Bush and President Jacque Chirac of France had a face to face meeting at the G-8 conference this w eek. From what I'm hearing, it was not a very friendly meeting.

I'm told that instead of shaking hands, President Bush extended his hand, then pulled it back sharply and laughed when President Chirac reached for it. Bush thought the joke was funny. Chirac didn't.

Although the two later shook hands as a show for the reporters, I'm told by one of Bush's aids that the President commented later that Chirac smelled like he hadn't bathed in a week and that he had one of those "girlie" handshakes. None of this should be surprising, based on what we've be led to believe about the French.

President Chirac reportedly asked Bush whether he would enjoy having a pretzel or two, at which time the secret service closed in around Bush, viewing the mere mention of a pretzel as a threat on Bush's life. Chirac reportedly laughed this time, pointing at a large wet spot that had developed around President Bush's groin. The President, it seems, has developed pretzelphobia as a result of his nearly fatal run-in with a Rolled Gold last year and is now terrified at the mere thought of those little salty breadsticks.

The French have openly taunted the United States in front of the United Nations and in the European media. They were opposed to the Iraqi War and they reportedly are trying to reacquire the Statue of Liberty that was given to the U.S. as a gesture of friendship in better times.

I think it's time we dumped the French as allies. After all, who needs friends that laugh at our leader and make him wet his pants. The President had a very productive meeting in Poland before the G-8 conference began. I'd say it's high time we said good riddance to France and added Polish president, Wzyzlyzki Krzyskislkzi, to the President's Christmas card list.

by Arlin Tompkins
May 15, 2003

The U.S. government has announced plans to provide $15 billion in aid to African countries to assist in the struggle against AIDS and disease. The announcement represents a bold humanitarian commitment to the dark continent by the Bush administration and a commitment to improving their moral standards as well.

As part of the bill now passing through Congress to implement the new proposals, the House of Representatives has included provisions allowing religious organizations to preach "abstinence" to the recipients of the African aid. Some liberals have objected to the inclusion of the abstinence language in the House bill, but I think it's appropriate for a number of reasons.

What we're really saying to the Africans is "you can have our money if you quit having sex." It's like prostitution in reverse. We'll help you if you become celebate. Africans will be taught that when they find themselves thinking about sex, they should immediately think about baseball or soccer or Karl Malden, and the feelings will pass.

The liberal alternative is to hand out condoms and keep our noses out of the African bedroom or tent, as it may be. All condoms do, though, is encourage safe sex, which is still sex. Condoms may prevent disease and save lives but do they promote moral behavior? Clearly, the answer is no.

Our real aim here is to save the Africans from disease while helping them live moral lives and quit running around having sex with every thing that moves. There will, of course, be Africans who are unable to give up sex entirely and who will end up dying of AIDS or some other terrible disease, but the brave frustrated few, who are successful in depriving themselves of sexual relationships and can replace sexual fantasies with thoughts of Rosie O'Donnell and Rush Limbaugh, can look forward to long, prosperous, celibate lives, all courtesy of the American government.

by Arlin Tompkins
March 18, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell has released a list of nations that are our new allies in the war against Iraq. A few of our historic allies are missing, of course, most notably France and Germany, but they have been replaced by the many newcomers.

I am encouraged by the fact that our country is not fighting the tyranny of Saddam Hussein alone. I know that the American soldier in the field will be comforted knowing that the Azerbaijani people and the Bulgarians are standing tall behind the American war effort. Georgia - presumably the country, not the state - is also on board in our war effort. (I suppose Georgia, the state, is also in favor of war.)

The Australians are on our side. So are the Albanians, whose military might should not be underestimated. After all, their military was strong enough to seize control of their democratically elected government. In that respect, there a little like Pakistan, our other martial law-governed ally.

In the future, truly patriotic Americans will likely redefine their vacation plans and take in some of the sights offered by our new allies. Paris and Berlin will be disfavored by Americans, who will never forgive France and Germany for turning its back on us after all we did for them in World War II.

I say who needs Paris and its Eiffel Tower when you can visit Ethiopia. Or, how about Eritrea? I am sure both countries will offer much in the way of travel destinations, as soon as their internal wars and famines are concluded.

I have to admit, when I first heard about Eritrea joining the "coalition of the willing," I thought it might be a joke. I'd never even heard of it before. Sure enough, though, I looked it up and there it was, right next to Djibouti in Eastern Africa. Secretary Powell has not made clear yet what role the Eritrean military forces will play in the war. Maybe they will be used to search for land mines.

The Macedonians are also our allies this time around. So is El Salvador, and we've managed to land the Czech Republic and Slovakia - both halves of the former Czecholslovakia. Quite a coup!

The Uzbekistanis and the Poles are also expected to lend considerable support to the effort. Poland will reportedly send part of its reconstitued cavalry to the front lines, as soon as it acquires saddles for all of its horses. Uzbekistan has promised to supply twelve dozen camels - the single-humped kind - to help lead the seige of Baghdad.

Let's not forget that we've been in serious negotiations with Angola and Cameroon to join the coalition, although word is still out on what role the Cameroonians or Angolans will play in the war strategy. One report I saw said that Cameroon would send its soccer team to play pick up games against the allies and to provide entertainment for the troops.

It's said that when the going get's tough the tough get going. It's also said that when times are rough, you find out who your friends really are. It's clear that the kitchen's gotten to hot for the Frances and Germanys of the world. I say good riddance to them and welcome aboard to our new allies, with whom we will strive to build a better world and a sustaining peace.

by Arlin Tompkins
March 7, 2003

New figures recently released indicate that the unemployment rolls swelled by over 300,000 as President Bush prepares the country for war. Many point to concerns about the war as the reason for the increase in unemployment, but there are other factors that are more directly contributing to the rise in job loss.

CBS has announced that former President Bill Clinton will be part of the "60 Minutes" program, beginning on Sunday. This announcement has so alarmed corporate executives across the country that payrolls have been slashed and workers given pink slips. The thought that Bill Clinton could begin to influence American politics has sent shivers of fear down the spines of CEOs everywhere and the common worker is feeling the aftershocks.

Clinton's signing on with CBS isn't the only thing driving the high unemployment rates. The millions who have taken to the streets to protest the war have also inadvertently contributed to the rise in joblessness. I believe that many corporations have chosen to fire employees for showing such anti-American behavior and thereby embarrassing their employers.

Most of the mainstream media will lay the blame for the high unemployment rates at George Bush's feet. They will point to his failed domestic policies, his rush to war, his willingness to push for tax cuts for the wealthy in the face of rising deficits, and the alienation of virtually all of our allies except for Spain and Britain. They will look at the fact that the stock market has lost more than 25% of its value since he took office, his failure to take any meaningful action against the bandits who have pilfered corporations like Enron, and the massive profits flowing into the coffers of oil companies as gas prices soar across the country.

But, they are wrong. None of these things have caused the problems we now face with unemployment. I maintain, as do most of my brethren on the mainstream radio talk shows, that the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of Clinton and Martin Sheen.

The sooner we can deal with the real root of the problem, the more quickly we can get the country back on the road to recovery.

by Arlin Tompkins
March 3, 2003

Something has been sticking in my craw for the past week or so, ever since the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was laughed out of the press room by journalists.

It happened on February 25. Ari was asked whether the White House was "buying" a coalition against Saddam instead of building one through consensus. Ari flat out denied that President Bush would ever have to buy votes, and the whole press corps erupted in laughter. Ari was humiliated, and he turned and walked out of the room in a huff. I can neither confirm nor deny whether any obscene hand gestures were made during the exit.

I suspect he went and told the President about how badly he was treated, and I would envision that Attorney General Ashcroft has already been summoned to begin investigations into the likely communist background of the reporter who posed the question. I have no doubt that within short order, that reporter's terrorist or communist associations will be alleged and confirmed by "intelligence sources." One of General Ashcroft's aides should carefully study the books purchased and movies rented by the reporter to look for liberal influences.

I am sure that once enough "evidence" is accumulated against the reporter, appropriate discipline and censure will follow. Then, we'll see who's laughing.

by Arlin Tompkins
February 14, 2003

After I read yesterday's paper, I looked out my window to see if anything was going on. I halfway expected to hear music playing and people dancing in the street. Why? Because the law and order days of Joe McCarthy are back.

Let's get one thing straight. Joe McCarthy was one of the finest Americans ever to serve as Attorney General. It's because of his never-ending battle to root out Communists in this country that there is no communist presence here anymore, except for perhaps the far left wing of the Democrat Party. McCarthy ran 'em all out of town.

Now, he has a rightful heir to his mantle in our present Attorney General John Ashcroft. They're two peas from the same pod. Ashcroft doesn't have to worry about the Communists, thanks to McCarthy, but he does have to worry about the terrorists. Substitute "terrorism" for "communism" and you've got an idea of Ashcroft's agenda.

We're now learning that Ashcroft has had the Justice Department work up a draft of the "Patriot II" bill, which will give the government greater rights to ferret out undesirables from American society. Under this new act, there are fewer procedural rules to deal with, like trials by juries. Heck, people who help out groups that turn out to be terrorist groups can be stripped of their citizenship and escorted right out of the country. How's that for quick justice?

Congress will probably want to debate the Patriot II act but I would try a different tact if I were Mr. Ashcroft. Skip Congress altogether. Try and see if the U.S. Supreme Court will convene and put its stamp of approval on the act. There's no reason at all for 535 congressmen to debate something that's obviously for the good of us all. The Supreme Court would guarantee, at least, a 5-4 vote in favor of the new laws.

Congress has become increasingly irrelevant in the Bush Administration. Need them to declare war on Iraq? Nope. Just send out the heavy artillery. How about the war on terrorism? Ashcroft and his Justice Department have that under control. All I'm suggesting is that we take it one step further and eliminate the need to involve Congress in the making of laws that are designed to protect Americans. It makes sense, especially when you realize that we need to get these laws passed now and not after hours of debate.

The U.N. can take a hike. They're almost as irrelevant as our Congress. Meanwhile, I'll bet Joe McCarthy is surely smiling, wherever he is. And wait a minute... is that music and dancing outside in the street...?

by Arlin Tompkins
February 11, 2003

Much has been made over the past few days over the dispute within NATO over France and Germany's refusal to back the U.S. war effort against Iraq. My response: "to hell with them."

NATO stands for "North American Treaty Organization." Note, there, that the emphasis is on "North American," which for all practical purposes is the U.S.A. Ever since its inception, the Europeans have been nothing more than freeloaders, bumming a ride on the U.S.'s back, knowing that we would be there if there were any problems. I say, no more to NATO. Who needs it?

President Bush sees it like I do. Who needs allies like the French and the Germans? We've got the British although, God knows, we don't need them either. We've also got a handful of those new Eastern European countries like Vilnius and Kosovo that I'd just as soon see us do without too. In fact, if they don't speak the American language - without an accent -then I have no use for them.

For the last 60 years, we've been the policeman of the world, the one superpower that stood for what was "right." I'm tired of it. Let France be the world's watchdog from now on. Our shift is over.

As for the U.N. - well, don't even get me started on that. We shouldn't be part of any organization that allows communist countries like China to join. No more resolutions. No more "security councils." We'll just do what we want to do and we won't bother to take names while we're doing it either.

This may sound harsh but this is the world that we live in. President Bush realizes it. Soon, so will the rest of the world.

by Arlin Tompkins
January 21, 2003

If you ask me, there's only one man to blame for the problems we're having with Iraq. That man's name is Bill Clinton.

As I was strolling through the drug store the other day to buy some decongestant, I was in line and I noticed the National Enquirer sitting on the shelf. On the cover was Bill Clinton next to a headline that said he was seeking "sexual therapy." Right then, a light bulb went off over my head, and I knew why we were about to go to war with Iraq.

Virtually every problem that our country has been going through the past two years can be blamed on Clinton. The rising deficit? Not the cause of the Republicans giving away $1.35 trillion of our surplus but because Bill Clinton had sex with a woman not his wife in the oval office. The rising unemployment rate? Again, I blame it on Clinton for lying about his sex life to Congress.

For eight long years, the good conservatives in Congress were forced to focus entirely on the sexual activities of Bill Clinton. Never mind passing laws or doing what they usually do. For eight years, it was get Clinton no matter what the cost. It takes a lot of attention to look in the President's bedroom window every day and night.

When Clinton finally left office, the conservatives were forced to deal with the mess he left behind. The White House had to be scrubbed top to bottom. All these policies designed to protect the environment had to be undone. God-fearing judges had to be appointed to fill vacancies. All those stolen "W"s on White House typewriters had to be replaced.

With all this going on, Congress didn't have time to focus on Iraq. Or the deficit. Or unemployment. Are you beginning to get the picture?

I would strongly suggest that Congress now focus their attentions on retrying Bill Clinton for the impeachment he so richly deserved. If every minute of the congressional day is filled with digging up dirt on our ex-President, I'm sure we can find something better than Whitewater before our current President's term ends in two years.

by Arlin Tompkins
January 15, 2003

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has announced that the failure of the U.N. weapons inspector teams to find any weapons of mass destruction or "WOMDEEs" as I like to call them means Iraq is hiding something. In other words, "no evidence" of any WOMDEEs is "evidence" of WOMDEEs.

In our system of legal justice, we've come to expect evidence before we find guilt. There's a so-called presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. These rules don't apply, however, when it comes to foreign affairs.

As President of the Kern County War Games Council, a local club that oversees authentic reenactments of actual field battles, I've learned a lot about how foreign countries act under duress. In short, they'll pretty much say and do anything to keep from getting blown to pieces. That's the point Secretary Rumsfeld is trying to make about Iraq.

What he's thinking is that if Iraq had WOMDEEs, they would act like they didn't. But, if they didn't have WOMDEEs, they'd act the same way. See? If they had the WOMDEEs, they'd hide them away and we wouldn't find them. If they didn't have WOMDEEs, we wouldn't find them either. Make sense?

What it adds up to is Mr. Saddaam Hussein is sitting on a bunch of WOMDEEs and Secretary Rumsfeld has seen through his plan. It doesn't make any difference that the U.N. inspectors didn't find anything. It also doesn't matter if we ever find the WOMDEEs. We know that they're there, and that's all we need to know to storm the palace.

by Arlin Tompkins
January 4, 2003

Our Vice President has recently been under attack in the federal court by none other than the General Accounting Office (GAO). God only knows who initiated this assault on the Vice President's character and integrity but I rest assured in knowing that God, acting through Judge John Bates, has finally put a stop to it.

All of the hub-bub started when the GAO wanted to know who Vice President Dick met with when the nation's energy policy was being formulated. I suppose the GAO thought that he might have met with some of the Enron boys and were just trying to embarrass him. What the GAO didn't anticipate was that the Vice President would play the "executor privilege" card, which allows the President and Vice President and anyone else they talk to from having to tell anybody anything at anytime, if they don't want to.

The GAO argued that the public had a "right" to know who was in the room when our national energy policy was being formed. They claimed that in the interest of "open government," the Administration should not play "hide the ball" on matters of national importance.

I woke up this morning and re-read my copy of the U.S. Constitution. I didn't see anything in it about a "right" to to know any of the things the GAO wants to know. In fact, I didn't see anything about the GAO. I suggest that John Ashcroft direct the Justice Department to immediately investigate whether the GAO is itself constitutional. I suspect it is not.

As for "open government," the public doesn't need or expect to know everything. I, for one, don't care if Dick met with a few Enron cronies or some of the oil and gas big boys because I trust that he knows better than I do about what's best for our country. Maybe a policy here or a policy there favors Enron or Texaco. That's okay in my book too because those companies paid large sums of money to elect our President and rightfully deserve the chance to have their needs taken into consideration before the needs of the Gore-supporting left-wing crybabies.

Judge John Bates, whom President George W. Bush recently appointed, agreed that the GAO was way overstepping its boundries by wanting to know about Dick's secret meetings. Judge Bates said to give the GAO what they want would just destroy the "executor privilege," and he would have none of that. Judge Bates is certainly a fine American and a wise judge, and the GAO should be ashamed of their un-American actions in seeking to inform the public about things the public has no right to know about.

So, I say three cheers for Judge Bates, who has already shown President Bush that he made a fine judicial appointment, three cheers for Vice President Dick, whose small victory is really a triumph of the need for secrecy over "open" government, and a big Bronx cheer for the leftward-leaning liberal louses at the GAO who were denied the right to embarrass the Vice President and his friends at Enron.