You gotta read it to believe it. They retain the meagerest scrap of dignity based on deniability, since it is on the opinion page. It’s still slime.
Some excerpted glops…
(Regarding Kerry’s “war crimes” testimony…)
“…To me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and “news reports” about invented American war atrocities…”
“…As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation…”
“…As far as I’m concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America. In 1976, Andropov gave my own Romanian DIE credit for helping his KGB do so…”
"…During my last meeting with Andropov, he said, wisely, “now all we have to do is to keep the Vietnam-era anti-Americanism alive…”
Here’s the punch line: the guy used to Romania’s secret police/spy guy. That’s right, Ceucescu’s goon. Indeed, this is offered as verification of his bona fides.
Didn’t the National Review have, at one time, a scrap of dignity, some meager sense of political right and wrong. Wasn’t there, at one point, a line they wouldn’t cross? True, don’t read NR a lot. Were they always a pen of venemous reptiles, or is this recent? Will somebody buy me a subscription so that I can vehemently cancel it?