Talking Turkey

CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL'S insightful analysis of Turkey ("The Turkey Paradox," July 26) deserves amplification. Turkey's democratic blossoming is irreversible as, independent of European Union membership, it rests on an overwhelming popular consensus.

For generations after Atatürk's abolition of the caliphate, traditional Islamic garb communicated belligerent opposition to the trappings of Western civilization (including democracy, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech). Time and experience have largely stripped headscarves and veils of this overt political connotation. Turkey's push for greater recognition of Islam in public life testifies to its growing democratic maturity and confidence.

Bruce Fein
Washington, DC

Hatfill's Day in Court

THE ONGOING CASE OF Hatfill v. Kristof deserves far more than just a mention in your SCRAPBOOK (July 26). It is a perfect example of how freedom of the press blinds journalists and press institutions such as the New York Times to the problem of trial lawyers.

If an employee of McDonald's or Halliburton, for example, had defamed Dr. Hatfill in such a way that he could not find work, that employee would face a very different day in court than Nicholas Kristof. As it is, Kristof may hide behind the First Amendment to excuse his slandering of an innocent man's reputation.

But just imagine if Kristof and the Times were actually held to the same standards as everyone else. In the hands of a good trial lawyer, the Hatfill case would be a perfect opportunity for a jury to, in the parlance of our times, "send a message" to "Big Media" by way of a multi-million-dollar judgment.

If, indeed, Kristof and the New York Times had to spend one day in front of a jury without some strained First Amendment-based defense to protect them, they might have a very different outlook on tort reform.

Kurt Reiger
Oklahoma City, OK

Hey, Mr. Wilson!

I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD Matthew Continetti for his terrific article on the Joe Wilson scandal ("'A Little Literary Flair,'" July 26). It is by far the best piece on the subject I have read to date.

As a retired military intelligence officer, I had plenty of dealings with CIA and State Department types during my 17 years of overseas duty. Whereas the diplomatic types were almost always very political and had little use for the military, CIA operatives were generally politically circumspect to a fault. I mention this because it seems to me that a silent but apparent thread running through the Wilson story is the political activism of his CIA wife, Valerie Plame.

It seems likely to me that Plame was responsible for Wilson's trip to Niger. I find this shocking, just as I find shocking the release of an anti-Bush book by an "anonymous" (but active) CIA employee. Has the agency become an openly politicized organization? If so, this is outrageous.

With regard to Wilson, he is clearly a self-serving liar who loves himself more than he loves his country. Of course, I doubt that any of the mainstream media figures who trumpeted his lies will step forward to apologize and correct the record. Thank goodness we have writers like Continetti to help get the truth out.

John Eikelbarner
Daly City, CA

MATTHEW CONTINETTI has written a fine article on the Joe Wilson affair. While the whole ordeal says much about Wilson and the seemingly willful gullibility of the mainstream media, it also speaks volumes about the CIA.

To wit: The CIA's original decision to send Wilson to Niger was odd for several reasons. Aside from the fact that Wilson knew two people in the Nigerien government, he had no expertise on the subject at hand. He was a well-known and vociferous critic of the Bush administration, so the agency would have to treat his conclusions with due skepticism. In addition, by hiring Wilson, the CIA was basically subcontracting its own business to someone outside the agency.

All in all, the agency's choice of Wilson as unofficial envoy to Niger made very little sense.

Richard DiNardo
Stafford, VA

Wall of Shame?

IN REGARD TO Max Boot's article on the West Bank barrier ("The Moral Low Ground," July 26): If the fence were built wholly within the boundaries of Israeli territory, there would be no reason for the World Court, or any other body, to condemn it. But, as the court points out, the fence is tantamount to a virtual annexation of Palestinian land.

No serious person questions Israel's right to self-defense. But self-defense does not justify extending this barrier into Palestinian territory.

Henry Clifford
Wainscott, NY