Posted on 04/21/2004 4:43:45 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
During the Clinton years Walter Pincus was consider to a mouthpiece for NSA adviser Sandy Berger who was also a former China lobbyist. Pincus' was wife also a Clinton Administration official. On two occasions Pincus was given time off by the Washington Post to work for J. W. Fulbright.
These facts certainly help explain why Pincus savaged the Cox Committee intelligence report on Chinese espionage, whose conclusions he called "unwarranted" and whose language he falsely described as "inflammatory".
This is the same Pincus who maliciously described as a "Killer Warhead" missiles designed to protect Americans against nuclear attack.
Pincus' attack on the Cox Committee exposed his bigotry and penchant for lying when it advances his ideology. Despite his assertions to the contrary the committee was not an instrument of Republican partisanship. Every Democrat on the committee fully endorsed its recommendations. No doubt this explains why he carefully avoided mentioning the bipartisan nature of the committee and its findings.
What is particularly interesting is that Pincus is tied in with the America-hating Marxist Institute for Policy Studies which from its inception in 1963 acted as a front for the KGB, even hosting KGB officers, until the collapse of the Soviet empire.
In September 1974 Pincus attended an IPS sponsored conference during which he and others present savaged the CIA, basically accusing it of being a criminal organisation. I have no idea at the stage whether any of the IPS' KGB friends were present.
(Incidentally, Anthony Lake was also attended the conference. Readers might recall that Clinton nominated Lake for director of the CIA. The nomination faced a barrage of outraged criticism and was withdrawn. Americans have no idea what a narrow escape they had).
The America-hating Richard Barnet, one of the founders of the IPS and conference sponsor, called for the destruction of the CIA, and even demanded that it cease monitoring international terrorist groups because it violated their civil liberties. (Barnet's ideological insanity brings to mind the civil liberties of 3,000 New Yorkers who had their lives brutally snuffed out by internationalist terrorists). Pincus was not heard objecting to Barnet's proposals.
So what does Pincus do at the Washington Post? He writes on national security matters. This is a man who associates with America-haters, attacks national defence, maligned an intelligence committee when it produced unfavourable findings about Chinese espionage, and who now lies about Richard Clarke's statements. Now what does that tell us about the Washington Post?
With that kind of record Pincus should be working for the New York Times.
Dana Milbank of the Washington Post isn't, in my opinion, much better than Pincus. This leftwing joker attacked Bush's opposition to gay marriage with the sneering comment that "?the compassionate conservative of 2000 has shown he is willing, if necessary, to rekindle the culture wars in 2004" (A Move to Satisfy Conservative Base, 25 February 2004).
Milbank is evidently one of those reporters who think a "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron. A bit like leftwing reporter, I suppose. His article did, however, serve to demonstrate how enormous the gulf is between the leftist mainstream media and the mass of Americans when he made the absurd allegation that President Bush had rekindled the "culture wars", as if the left had ever called a truce.
In For Bush, Facts Are Malleable Millbank did his best to paint Bush as an outrageous liar, while dismissing Clinton's lies as mere indiscretions. (Marvellous, isn't it? Republicans lie while Democrats are merely indiscreet. Well, that's the mainstream media for you).
When Bush blacklisted Talk magazine for attacking his children, this was just too much for Milbank ? the blacklisting, that is, not the malicious attack on the Bush girls. The same bloke who said next to nothing when Stephanopoulos, a Clinton damage-control flak, pressured the mainstream media, and believe me, it didn't take much pressure, to black list FBI agent Gary Aldrich's exposî`f the Clintons' White House shenanigans suddenly discovered the virtue of a free media. By free, he and his ilk mean free to savage Republicans and their families.
Milbank is a typical example of the self-righteous Bush-bashing for which the bigoted mainstream media has become notorious. On 16 July 2002 he had an article in the Post which insinuated that Cheney used inside information to make an $18.5 million profit at the expense of Halliburton's shareholders.
For this vicious criminal charge, and it was a criminal charge, Milbank produced absolutely no evidence of any kind. For this hardcore Democrat the thought was sufficient evidence. Readers might justifiably wonder that if the likes of Milbank are so concerned with alleged corporate wrongdoing why did they give McAuliffe a pass.
In a case you've forgotten, McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a former Clinton bag man, made a cool $18.5 million in Global Crossing for a modest investment of $100,000. By a strange coincidence, the suckers, sorry, I meant shareholders, were mostly wiped out.
It seems that when a Hillary Clinton or a McAuliffe makes a killing for modest outlays it's always due to their superior business acumen. If a Republican does well, as Cheney did, it's clearly a case of criminal behaviour. Just ask Milbank, if you don't believe me.
It won't come as any surprise, then, to learn that Mr Milbank is no fan of Katherine Harris. In a pathetic attempt at another hit job on a Republican, he and Jo Becker uncovered disgraceful evidence that Harris had actually campaigned for George Bush and other GOP candidates (Controversy Swirls Around Harris, 14 November 2000). Oddly enough, the public remained visibly unmoved by Harris's scandalous behaviour, unable, unlike Milbank, to see what the controversy was.
What all of this amounts to is that America's mainstream media is thoroughly dishonest and ideologically corrupt to the core. Thank God the public now have an alternative in the net.
You might also want to mention to Gerod Jackson that the Washington Post reported that the Senate Intelligence memos were written by a staffer, not by a Senator...but they can't say how they know this to be a fact, and they can't/won't identify said "staffer." Psychic reporting, one supposes.
Why was this not written in English?
I guess that makes Pincus a pinko.
I agree. I no longer subscribe to the NY Times. Instead of reading the Sunday Times yesterday, I
Bump!
Thanks for post. Save to read later.
In 1965 he married the former Ann Witsell Terry of Little Rock, Arkansas.
President Clinton announced today that he has appointed 18 individuals to Senior Executive Service positions in his administration. They are:
... Ann Terry Pincus, Director, Office of Research, U.S.I.A.
(Vrooman has been quoted or cited in no less than 20 Post articles since Aug. 17, 1999, nearly all of them written by either Vernon Loeb or Walter Pincus, or both. National security writer Pincus' wife, Ann Terry Pincus, worked in State Department intelligence and research as a Clinton appointee. A staunch Democrat from a prominent Little Rock family, she has ties to the Rose Law Firm.)
And if it's the same Ann Terry Pincus, she gave money in 2002 to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
Hmmm..it gets "curiouser and curiouser"
So Pincus' wife if a big time Clintonista RAT. Su-prize, su-prize.
It explains a lot.
Oh GOOD STUFF>>>>>refresh bump
Thanks for the ping. It's a good thread especially with mewzilla's links.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.