It turns out Bush was right about Iraq's quest for uranium Apr 17, 2006 by John Leo In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium." In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush is the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation. Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of Niger told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; Niger has nothing much to trade other than uranium. Christopher Hitchens made the latter point last week in a muscular column subtitled "Sorry, everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger." The "Sorry, everyone" phrase indicates the strength of the reigning orthodoxy -- that Bush simply lied when he uttered the famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Hitchens made these points: Saddam Hussein had already acquired a large amount of uranium from Niger once before, in 1981, so he knew where to go. Amid suspicions that Saddam was trying to revive his nuclear program, Iraqis made a 1999 visit to Niger. The head member of the visiting Iraqi team was Saddam's senior public envoy for nuclear matters. Hmmm. Defenders of orthodoxy have a fair point to make here. They say that the alert French, who were in total control of Nigerian uranium, would never have allowed it. Maybe, but the alert French turned out to be the payoff-oriented French on a very large scale in the oil-for-bribes scandal. Hitchens made another point. The forged documents claiming an Iraq-Niger connection were so crude that they could never have fooled the CIA or British intelligence for very long. Who would do this, and do it so badly? Nobody knows. But if the forgeries were meant to distract from other evidence that Bush was right, then they certainly worked. Look around in American journalism, and you will find great certitude that the forgeries destroyed Bush's claim. That certitude can only be founded on the belief that Tony Blair, the U.S. Senate intelligence committee and the special investigative team of Parliament were all liars when they said there was substantial non-forged evidence backing Bush's claim. The investigative team was headed by the highly regarded Lord Butler, who served as a Cabinet minister under five prime ministers. It concluded that Bush's 16 words about Iraq's uranium shopping were "well-founded." Actually, there is one other way to discount the Butler report: Either muffle or don't mention it in your news columns. The New York Times opted for muffling. A database search finds no mention of "well-founded" in the Times reporting, and only one barely scrutable paragraph about uranium in the Butler report, way down in the 11th paragraph of a story buried well inside the paper. For you collectors of embarrassing journalism, here is paragraph 11: "It (the report) also defended British officials in the case of an apparently erroneous British report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions that made its way into President Bush's State of the Union speech last year claiming that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium in Niger. The Butler report confirmed that Iraqi officials had visited Niger in 1999, and the British government had several different sources insisting that the purpose was to buy uranium. But it added, 'the evidence was not conclusive that Iraq had actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.'" Note the Times' careful denial of something nobody had claimed -- that Iraq had recently bought, not sought, uranium in Africa. In truth, Bush handled the issue badly. He dithered, couldn't find the words to explain himself, and weirdly withdrew the 16 words when the pressure came. And it is surely arguable that the uranium-in-Africa charge was too flimsy for the weight Bush gave it in his speech. But as columnist Robert Novak once argued, the burgeoning "Bush lied" mantra was heavily dependent on the uranium claim. So the liar label was most firmly attached on an issue Bush was right about. Go figure. http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/johnleo/2006/04/17/193811.html
this is just silly. so the gist is that after 3 years of opportunity for the bush camp to produce evidence, to preach the truth in congressional hearings, press conferences, talk shows, diplomatic events, national television speeches, printed publications, etc., despite the massive power of the US federal government, the reason the real truth hasn't gotten out is...... it's the new york times' fault. thinking adults should be ashamed to write nonsense like this, much less believe it.
Yeah, okay, it makes much more sense to believe 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush and that the media hasn't been biased. Thanks for bringing common sense to the thread.
hapaboy Get a grip on reality. Why are you the only believer in the whole world? Please watch another channel besides FOX. ...............
The "Bush lied" contingent is as bizarrely committed to the martyrdom of Joe Wilson and his wife Valery Plame as Dan Rather was to his National Guard story. As the disgraced Rather has comically maintained, the story could well be true, it was just the evidence that was bogus. So with wilson. He has repeatedly been unmasked, not as the heroic figure the media claims, but as an opportunistic, serial liar. As the Clintons can attest, it really doesn't matter what the facts are, provided the media will ignore them.
If Joe Wilson having been proved a liar about his escapade in Niger by all of the above, and yet still being lionized by the NY Times is not proof of exactly the thing you ridicule, I don't know what is.
Oh yeah, makes sense to me "Saddam built the third largest army in the world but he never thought of nukes". Get real, the guy was a murdering psychopath with a will to power that would not quit, ridiculous to think he shunned the idea of nukes. Gee, maybe it was a moral thing with Saddam, sort of a "nukes are bad for the environment" thing!!
this doesn't answer the question -- so then, the argument is that the truth (wilson is a liar, bush crew was accurate all along) would be clear to all, but for the actions of the new york times? curious that an editorial, written for the sole purpose of supporting the bush camp, doesn't identify any evidence for this "truth"? billions in propaganda funds, nearly unlimited resources, and this is the best they can do: that "everybody knew" that "commercial relations" aren't "really" commercial?
I'm not sure I undestand your objection. Bush said that Saddam was trying to get uranium in Africa. The british intell service agreed. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion, came back and gave the CIA a report, which apparently said the Iraqis had been there but hadn't bought anything. Fastforward to Wilson's op ed in the NYT, which falsely claimed he had proved the story to be wrong. The Senate Committee said not only did he not prove it wrong, but he basically confirmed it. They also said he lied when he claimed his wife did not recommend him for the job. They even produced a memo where she went on record as recommending him. The fact that Wilson can still be regarded as some sort of hero who spoke truth to power and suffered a horrible retribution is the real question.
=============== hapaboy ; True & remember the 3 Presidential reasons for liberating Iraq; 1]Defend Israel 2]Military style neutralize terrorists 3]WMD Like the Church & some hebrew choirs sing and then ; the LORD fights for Israel, Praise the LORD his mercy [covenant love] endureth forever. II Chronicles 20,21,-25-29