How Wikipedia Smears Conservatives

Wikipedia continues to affirm its commitment to neutrality.

This has become a running joke.

Maybe the most persuasive way to show that Wikipedia is filled with bias is just to cite a lot of examples; some of the most effective examples take the form of personal criticism, rising in the worst cases to libel. After all, probably the greatest challenge to staying consistent with a neutrality policy is to characterize fairly the very people you most strongly disagree with about politics. And, sadly, that’s just not a challenge the Wikipedia echo chamber is equal to.

So, here you go: some of the easier-to-find examples of how the decidedly left-wing Wikipedia cannot resist smearing its ideological opponents. In the following, I quote from the first three paragraphs about various conservative American politicians, commentators, and other figures. The biased bits are bolded, with my comments indicated in notes with numbers, like this: [1]. Smaller footnotes, with letters rather than numbers, are from Wikipedia. Note: if a Wikipedia article about you (or someone you know) exemplifies an abandonment of Wikipedia’s original neutrality policy, please share the example in the comments.

Notes on neutrality before we begin

Neutrality, as originally defined in Wikipedia policy, means that a person who is well-informed on a topic cannot tell which of competing parties (or ideologies, religions, philosophies, etc.) the authors adhere to. In a genuinely neutral article about U.S. politics, you would not be able to tell from the lede whether the authors were Republicans or Democrats.

The mere fact that something negative is written about someone is not by itself evidence of bias. But an article is biased against a person when

  • negative information is so predominant that readers can infer that the authors harbor great hatred, resentment, or strong disapproval of the subject (especially when the target has a popular following among many ordinary people);
  • dismissive epithets and judgments are used in Wikipedia’s own voice; or
  • what a person is legitimately famous for is omitted, dismissed, or misrepresented in the lede, or buried further down in the article.

I want to convey this very clearly to leftists who continually misunderstand the simple but powerful concept of neutrality: even if a controversial view is factual, i.e., objectively true, that does not by itself make your assertion of it in an article neutral. A properly skeptical conservative can agree that, maybe, for all he really knows, “reality has a liberal bias.” That doesn’t change the requirements of neutrality one iota. If a liberal view is indeed factual, you might (in a personal essay) correctly claim that it is “objective” and “fair” and “accurate” to express it. The thing is, others might disagree with you on what the facts are. It happens on Wikipedia all the time. And that matters, a lot, to how you should approach such disputed issues.

I want to ask leftists reading this: are you really so completely committed to your ideology that you cannot acknowledge that people are capable of disagreeing about what the facts are? In any event, on absolutely nobody’s view—nobody who understands what the term “neutral” means, that is—is it neutral to baldly assert, without qualification, a purported fact about which there is some controversy.

Factuality is not the determining variable when we are assessing neutrality with respect to some controversy; the essential question is whether the text takes a position on the controversy. Again, not taking a position is the feature of the text that makes it neutral. So maybe it’s the very concept of neutrality that the left has an issue with. (I think so, actually. That’s pretty obvious. One can find them saying so, after all.) Generally, the position that you think is factually accurate should appear in the article, together with the best evidence for it. A purported fact and its evidence should appear, yes. But so should other purported facts, when other people disagree on the facts, as they do.

Anyone who argues against these observations about neutrality obviously wants to able to disseminate manipulative, one-sided propaganda under the cloak of neutral reference information. This is intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible, which is why I keep writing about it.

We begin with a couple of conservative (or at least, Republican) American politicians. There must be hundreds of examples of obvious anti-conservative bias in articles about other Republicans; sometimes, to find the most obvious examples, you’ll need to look past the first few paragraphs.

Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American politician, media personality, and businessman[1] who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School with a bachelor’s degree in 1968. He became president of his father’s real-estate business[2] in 1971 and renamed it the Trump Organization. He expanded its operations to building and renovating skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, and golf courses and later started side ventures, mostly by licensing his name. From 2004 to 2015, he co-produced and hosted the reality television series The Apprentice. He and his businesses have been plaintiff or defendant in more than 4,000 state and federal legal actions, including six corporate bankruptcies.[3]

He won the 2016 presidential election as the Republican nominee against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton while losing the popular vote.[a] During that campaign, Trump’s political positions were described as populist, protectionist, isolationist, and nationalist.[4] He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government service. His election and policies sparked numerous protests.[5] The 2017–2019 special counsel investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to favor his campaign.[6] Trump promoted conspiracy theories[7] and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics.[8] Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged or racist and many as misogynistic.[9]

[1] Note the order. But surely he is distinguished more for his business ventures than his being a “media personality.”

[2] True. And how many wealthy businessmen inherit their businesses?

[3] Articles on how many other major businessmen, who have started many ventures, enumerate their bankruptcies in the second paragraph?

[4] Descriptions few Americans would apply to themselves, except perhaps “populist.” This is judgmental and in Wikipedia’s own voice.

[5] What president’s election doesn’t spark protests?

[6] This has been revealed to have been a hoax in the Durham report; but Wikipedia can’t be bothered to notice that.

[7] Would his defenders call them “conspiracy theories”?

[8] Would Trump’s defenders call them “false” or his degree of mendacity “unprecedented”? Wikipedia gives no voice to those who find that Trump told more important truths than many politicians typically do.

[9] In 2023, the ultimate poisoning of the well. Again, this marks the article as being written by people who did not vote for Trump. “No duh,” you might say. While that might be obvious, and while you might find it to be totally unobjectionable, it still makes the article one-sided and biased, and hence not neutral. See the section on neutrality above.

Ronald Dion DeSantis (/dɪˈsæntɪs, diː-/; born September 14, 1978) is an American politician serving since 2019 as the 46th governor of Florida. […]

Skipping to the third paragraph:

DeSantis was first elected to Congress in 2012 and was reelected in 2014 and 2016. During his tenure he became a founding member of the Freedom Caucus and was an ally of President Donald Trump. DeSantis criticized Special Council Robert Mueller’s investigation into allegations of “links and/or coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[1] He briefly ran for U.S. Senate in 2016, but withdrew when incumbent senator Marco Rubio sought reelection. DeSantis won the Republican nomination for the 2018 gubernatorial election and narrowly defeated the Democratic nominee, Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum, in the general election by 0.4%.

[1] One might think that DeSantis’ criticism of Mueller’s failed investigation was justified and that the investigation was debunked by the recent Durham report. Such a possibility, which is what most Republicans think, seems not to occur to Wikipedia’s editors. In any event, is this really the third thing to mention among DeSantis’s political accomplishments (after founding the Freedom Caucus and supporting Trump)?

Now some excerpts from articles about commentators and journalists. This list could be expanded 10 or 100 times and one would not reach the end of the smears, especially if one looked beyond the first few paragraphs.

Dinesh Joseph D’Souza (/dɪˈnɛʃ dəˈsuːzə/; born April 25, 1961) is an Indian-American right-wing[a][b][c] political commentator, author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist.[d][1] He has written over a dozen books, several of them New York Times best-sellers.[21][22]

[1] This is not just biased, it is simply and transparently biased. “Conspiracy theorist” is a dismissive term; is not a position or title, but is used almost exclusively as a belittling smear. Besides, it is just good sense to believe that powerful people get together behind the scenes and occasionally plan (i.e., conspire to commit) acts that are seriously immoral if not illegal. Indeed, no one who is aware of history fails to fully endorse theories about how, throughout history, powerful players have conspired to gain power and wealth. Such theories are a staple of left-wing theories of history, after all. Finally, I must point out that in the various articles that mention that someone is a “conspiracy theorist,” one must always go digging for what the purported conspiracy theory even is. This is rarely spelled out because the theories in question are widely held among conservatives.

Mark Reed Levin (/ləˈvɪn/; born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, and radio personality. […]

Skipping to second paragraph:

He has been described as “right-wing” by The New York TimesCNNNPR, and Politico.[c][d][e][f][1] He is known for his strident criticisms of Democrats and encouragement of primary challenges to congressional Republicans that he considers to be “Republican In Name Only” (RINO).[2] He endorsed Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and declared himself “Never Trump“, but reluctantly endorsed Donald Trump after he won the Republican nomination.[g] Since the start of the Trump presidency, Levin’s commentary has become strongly pro-Trump.[h][3]

[1] It is certainly true that the four left-wing publications listed would want to give Levin (who is Jewish) a demonizing label that lumps him in with Nazis. That justifies repeating the smear in an encyclopedia article?

[2] Is there something wrong with a conservative being opposed to Republicans who are insufficiently conservative, or merely toadies for the Establishment, as so many in Congress in both parties manifestly are?

[3] Again, spending half of the second paragraph to say that Levin began as anti-Trump before becoming pro-Trump is a very strange choice, unless you are fixated on demonizing people for supporting Trump.

Michelle Malkin (/ˈmɔːlkɪn/née Maglalang; born October 20, 1970)[a] is an American conservative political commentator. She was a Fox News contributor and in May 2020 joined Newsmax TV. Malkin has written seven books and founded the conservative websites Twitchy and Hot Air.[b]

Around 2019, Malkin began to distance herself from conventional conservatism and instead publicly support members of the extreme right, including Nick Fuentes,[c][d][e] as well as other white nationalistsneo-Nazis, and Groypers, including Identity Evropa leader Patrick Casey.[f][g][h] In November 2019, she was dropped by conservative organization Young America’s Foundation (YAF), citing her support for individuals associated with antisemitism and white nationalism.[e][g][1]

[1] This case requires some nuance, because indeed many conservatives now distance themselves from Malkin. Still, Wikipedia uses, in its own voice, such loaded terms as “extreme right,” “white nationalists,” and others; these are highly litigated. Generally, such terms are used as terms of accusation and dismissal, and they can be correctly applied, but they are usually controversial. For all I know, they might be correct in Malkin’s case (although, as she is a Filipino-American, “white nationalist” seems like a stretch). What I do know is that insinuating that she is now of the “extreme right,” without the slightest hint of how she might respond to such accusations, is transparently biased. Again, the bias is not because the accusations are reported at all—I do not take issue with that—but because they are made in Wikipedia’s voice and without any response from Malkin (in the lede, at least; I haven’t read the whole article).

Candace Amber Owens Farmer (née Owens; born April 29, 1989) is an American conservative author, talk show host, political commentator, producer, and activist.[a][b] […]

Skipping to second paragraph:

On several occasions, Owens has claimed that the effects of white supremacy and white nationalism are exaggerated, especially when compared to other issues facing black Americans.[i] She has expressed anti-lockdown views[j] and promoted misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.[q] Owens has been criticized for promoting conspiracy theories,[r][s] mostly through her social media profiles and television and media appearances.[1]

[1] This is a perfect and concise example of what Wikipedians themselves frequently find wrong with “controversies” sections. The views listed here are, in themselves, not particularly important; she has every single one in common with many (maybe most) conservatives. As to “promoting conspiracy theories,” see above under D’Souza: in 2023, a person appears ridiculously uninformed if he does not know that the powerful sometimes collude secretly as they wield power and even commit crimes. In any event, the reason this list of opinions are included is clearly not that they are particularly noteworthy but because, to Wikipedia’s left-wing authors, they each mark her as notably lacking in decency or judgment. Thus again, this is poisoning the well. The same article written by a conservative would use the second paragraph to say something more distinctive and important about her and her wide-ranging commentary.

James Edward O’Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American political activist and provocateur[1] who founded Project Veritas, a far-right[c][2] activist[b] group that uses deceptive editing and information gathering techniques[3] to attack[4] mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. Both O’Keefe and Project Veritas have produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations; the recordings are often selectively edited to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects’ responses.[d][3] …

[1] It’s not false, exactly, that O’Keefe is a “provocateur.” Clearly, he provokes the powerful. But the description is used primarily by those who tend to be provoked by the provocateur. For his part, O’Keefe seems to be trying to reveal truths, not merely to provoke a reaction. O’Keefe would surely call himself a “journalist,” since he does break important stories, even if he and his associates often use deception and ambush journalism to get them. The left absolutely seethes with hatred against O’Keefe because he has so often exposed the hypocrisy, radicalism, and dishonesty lying behind so many icons and power players that the left-wing media loves or respects. Anyway, surely there is a neutral way to describe him. “Political activist and provocateur” is certainly not that. Perhaps sharing both liberal and conservative assessments would do the trick.

[2] “Far-right” is highly debatable. While this is a common description of him in left-wing media sources, here is nothing particularly far right about him. He is, rather, indeed, on the right—and he is particularly effective against icons of the left. This causes extreme anger on the left, which they translate into “far right,” ridiculously suggesting he’s a Nazi, which he is not.

[3] Every single instance of purported “deceptive editing” by Project Veritas, that I have seen so far anyway, has turned out to be fair. I have looked at several such cases as they broke. This is, in any event, an obviously biased description of O’Keefe, one that many of his defenders take great issue with. As to “deceptive…information gathering techniques,” I imagine Wikipedia means that O’Keefe’s hidden cameras catch people revealing their unguarded thoughts—yet this is a common practice of investigative journalism. It’s OK when 60 Minutes does it. It’s not OK when O’Keefe does it to CNN or ABC.

[4] “Attack” is highly debatable and, again, biased. Journalism that reveals salient facts about “mainstream media organizations and progressive groups” can be used in a judgmental attack, to be sure. Perhaps indeed O’Keefe occasionally indulges in such attacks (I am actually not sure). But mere revelation of embarrassing facts—assuming they are facts—in the report itself is a news report, not an attack. Such revelations are quite enough to earn the ire of the left and to be labeled “attacks.”

Libs of TikTok is a handle for various far-right[a][1] and anti-LGBT[b][2] social-media accounts (most prominently, a Twitter account) operated by Chaya Raichik, a former real estate agent.[j][k][l] Raichik uses the accounts to repost content created by left-wing and LGBT people on TikTok, and on other social-media platforms, often with hostile, mocking, or derogatory commentary.[o][p][3] The accounts have featured hate speech[4] and false claims,[5] especially relating to medical care of transgender children.[q][o][r][s] The Twitter account, also known by the handle @LibsofTikTok, has over 2 million followers as of March 2023[t][u] and has become influential among American conservatives and the political right.[k][n][v] Libs of TikTok’s social-media accounts have received several temporary suspensions and a permanent suspension from TikTok.[u][v][w][x]

[1] On “far-right,” see [2] above under James O’Keefe. I follow LibsOfTikTok (LoTT) fairly closely. Like O’Keefe, when LoTT expresses some views (often, the account just reshares content created by other sources with an objective description), those views do not strike me as unusually conservative, and they are certainly not fascist (i.e., not “far-right” in that sense). LoTT’s posts are, however, very pointed and very effective. And that is the only reason Wikipedia feels obligated to smear LoTT as “far-right.”

[2] I have no idea if Chaya Raichik is “anti-LGBT” (I’m guessing not), but what I do know is that plenty of libertarian gay people are fans. They, like LoTT, deeply resent the growing movement of the last 5-10 years of attempting to sexualize children. So this is another quite unfair smear, which would be made only by opponents of LoTT.

[3] “Often” is wrong. Her commentary is mostly understated and simply describes what is in a video (image, document, etc.). The appended commentary is hardly the focus, in any case. It is the context of the commentary—just for example, teachers sharing insights about how to hide information about children from their own parents—that makes any appended commentary seem extreme. Besides, there is no indication here as to why LoTT does indeed occasionally express some hostility: the vast majority of Americans regard such things as amputation of the breasts and penises of minors (which hospitals have done) as outrageous. Who would not be hostile to such practices?

[4] I honestly do not know what the article means by “hate speech” here. If the article means the use of the word “groomer,” this is a word that casts aspersions on the motives of trans activists who insist strongly on exposing minors to pornography and other sexual topics at an unusually early age. I think of the case of the school consultant who wrote curricula for pre-K about masturbation. The word represents an aggressive push-back against a movement to sexualize children. That does not make it “hate speech.”

[5] “False claims” is asserted on the basis of one case: LoTT reported in 2022 that Boston Children’s Hospital performed hysterectomies on minor trans males (i.e., biological girls who call themselves boys). The evidence was not at all lacking, and it remains unclear to what extent such surgeries were performed. Boston’s Children as of June 20, 2023, tells visitors, “The Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children’s Hospital offers gender affirmation surgery services to eligible adolescents and young adults who are ready to take this step in their journey.” But later down, the hospital declares in bold, “All genital surgeries are only performed on patients age 18 and older.” It is frequently claimed by mainstream media sources (and so, Wikipedia) that hospitals do not engage in such practices as underage double mastectomy (“top surgery”) and vaginoplasty, and thus that LoTT is lying. But she and many others have repeatedly come out with overwhelming evidence that hospitals do in fact engage in such practices on minors, whether or not Boston Children’s is currently one of them. In any event, the matter is controversial, and hence a truly unbiased Wikipedia article on LoTT should not assert in its own voice that she makes “false claims” of this sort.


In none of the above do I mean to align myself with the specific views of the people smeared by Wikipedia. My point is not to defend their views but simply to show that some of the most obvious examples of bias on Wikipedia are actually reputation-damaging smears against people.

And, because the people who contribute to and even make important editorial decisions about Wikipedia are, in many cases, anonymous, it is frequently the case that there is no legal recourse against libel. This is, of course, exactly the way radical leftists like it, and exactly as they want it to remain.

Here is a previous article on Wikipedia bias (May 2020).
And here is another (June 2021).






Please do dive in (politely). I want your reactions!

3 responses to “How Wikipedia Smears Conservatives”

  1. Hey Larry; I was reading the Wikipedia article about Russia disinformation over the war. While the things they said are technically true (and, indeed, there is a lot of Russian disinformation, maybe it was misinformation? Whatever, and I know there is a difference). Anyway, I noticed that, almost, without exception, the sources seemed to be solely left leaning, at least the English sources used. (I don’t speak Polish, and I hadn’t gotten around to checking the French sources, I can read Cyrillic but I don’t speak Russian and barely speak Ukrainian). I think we run into a problem, when a claim is accurate, but only using one side of the political spectrum. I remember John Stossel (and keep in mind, I am not a libertarian, more centre right, and I fail to see how Libs of Tiktok, who is Jewish, is far right) pointing out that an openly socialist source was considered reliable. But, few conservative sources were. (I mention not being a libertarian, because I acknowledge my own bias against Stossel). I remember, when I took journalism classes in college, we were explicitly told not to write the way Wikipeda articles are now written. So, there’s my rant. Thanks for the read!

  2. H.S.

    Great articles on Wikipedia’s bias on controversial topics. While I do edit the site on non-controversial stuff, the controversial stuff is clearly slanted in a liberal perspective with little to no conservative perspectives that contain some truth barring certain exceptions like the Atlantic slave trade which cites Thomas Sowell when discussing how 90 percent of West African slaves were forcibly shipped to the New World by West African slave traders and kingdoms.

    I would like to point to the George Floyd article on Wikipedia as an example of bias as well as it’s related pages. The article in particular contains a number of issues that obscure or downplay certain facts in the case:

    (1) It simply says that George Floyd was “murdered” by Derek Chauvin and emphasizes the races of the subjects.

    (2) The article says that a store clerk (Christopher Martin) alleged that Floyd passed a counterfeit 20 dollar bill. It is well-known from the full bodycam footage and it’s transcript that Floyd indeed passed such a bill to buy something at Cup Foods when asked.

    (3) The article falsely labels this case in it’s infobox as an example of Racism against African-Americans even though one of the officers was half-Nigerian (Alexander Kueng) with a white mother and the police chief of the Minneapolis Police Department was the Afro-Mexican Medaria Arrandondo and there was no evidence of a racial motive throughout the bodycam video.

    (4) Wikipedia readers will not learn that George Floyd was told by his friends and friendly bystanders such as Shawanda Renee Hill to stop resisting and get in the car. Readers will not learn that he lied about being claustrophobic or his mom just recently dying to avoid arrest as evidenced in the previous one from 2019 when he never claimed being claustrophobic. Readers will not learn that he fell down intentionally and sometimes unintentionally to avoid arrest. Readers will not learn that he was still resisting arrest. And most importantly, readers won’t learn that drug intoxicants like fentanyl and heart disease played a part in his death and not just merely Chauvin as acknowledged in one of the earliest autopsies on Floyd and a private comment from the Hennepin County Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker in addition to a toxicology report noting that he would consider Floyd’s death to be a drug overdose and not as a murder or drug overdose if he was found dead in his home or any other place and there were no other contributing factors. The only references to Floyd resisting arrest in the article’s Initial Events section are a quote from the clerk on his personal health and him not obeying the order to raise his hands. It says that Floyd told the officers he wasn’t resisting and not under the influence of drugs anymore ignoring the quotes by a key witness telling Floyd to “quit resisting, bro!” and noting he was suffering from “a heart attack” whilst urging him to get in the car. It’s also worth noting that the procedure used by Chauvin was approved by the MPD and is explicitly described as “non-lethal” not to mention that he only did this because every attempt to get Floyd in the car failed.

    (5) The article on George Floyd himself only briefly goes over his less-than-savory criminal record in Texas but never mentions what those crimes are or even the specific details of the robbery incident. Meanwhile, the article on Derek Chauvin tends to emphasize every negative thing he did.

    None of this is to say that police or Derek Chauvin are perfect and they have made mistakes like humans. It’s just that the article is missing key information and there are scarcely any conservative or centrist perspectives on the event.

    Another is the article on the American Antifa which calls it “left-wing” despite the fact that the groups under this label have no problem calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government and even punching or harming people they deem “Nazis” even if they really aren’t or some of it’s more violent acts.

    Overall Sanger, you did a good job with the articles showing the problems with Wikipedia on controversial topics and individuals. I just wanted to bring my observations on two articles in particular.

  3. Michael Szymanski

    I worked at DARPA as a support contractor on the government side on the research program known as TIA (I helped the government program managers formulate budgets, solicit proposals, execute contracts, and facilitate technology demonstrations).

    This Wikipedia entry repeatedly mis-characterizes the effort as a spy program. It cites an opinion article by NY Times columnist William Safire, which lit a match to burning down research efforts intended to improve information sharing and analyses in the immediate aftermath of the intelligence and law enforcement community failures that enabled the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    DARPA conducted this research program in keeping with its mission to explore new national security capabilities by building and demonstrating prototype tools. The article claims that the prototype tools were used to spy on US persons. This is patently false as no data attributable to US persons was used in demonstrating the program’s capabilities, consistent with FISA. Any tools that were developed and tested at INSCOM and elsewhere were restricted from accessing information sources involving US persons in accordance with US law. The agencies involved in such demonstrations and testing were responsible for compliance in this regard and these agencies only exist to pursue and analyze intelligence information sourced from non-US persons.

    The TIA program as it existed at DARPA was not canceled because of “a proposal to reward investors who predicted terrorist attacks,” but because of the inability of DARPA’s then lone government public affairs employee to manage myriad US Congressional inquiries (almost all from Democrats), inquiries implying wrongdoing and malfeasance, stimulated by overtly slanted accounts of the TIA program by biased conglomerate “news” sources. Then SecDef Rumsfeld offered DARPA’s Director, Tony Tether, assistance in developing a more robust response to the biased news reporting and Congressional criticism. For reasons unknown, Tether declined such assistance.

    Also, it wasn’t a proposal to reward investors that predicted terrorist attacks that was at issue. What sparked the decision to shutter TIA was a technology developer for one of TIA’s research projects (FutureMAP), promoting its work on its own website by providing an example of how the math undergirding their technology worked. They offered an example of the binary outcome questions facing the national security community that would lend themselves to a wisdom-of-crowds analysis, in this specific instance: “Will Yasser Arafat be assassinated by… [a specific date, which I don’t recall]?”

    My office at DARPA was next to the government program manager’s office for FutureMAP, Mike Foster. The decision to cancel DARPA’s TIA program was based on eliminating the distraction of a high level public relations war that neither the DARPA Director nor SecDef wished to continue. The solution was to remove an incredibly patriotic, insightful, and intelligent leader from any public association with these research activities because his history (Iran-Contra) was considered too much of a lightening rod. If John Poindexter was guilty of anything in Iran-Contra, it was his willingness to delegate authorities to those who abused those authorities. Ultimately, the most promising components of TIA continued on as classified programs, administered by a research agency within NSA (as noted in the Wikipedia article).

    Will Safire’s piece in the NY Times that sparked the political attacks on TIA was in no small part driven by personal animus by Safire toward Poindexter, a point which the Wikipedia authors do not disclose. Safire was the target of surveillance during the elder Bush presidency, surveillance intended to identify Bush administration insiders that were leaking classified and sensitive information to the press. Safire blamed the National Security Advisor at the time for the surveillance, John Poindexter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *