I have not followed the Plame follies nearly as closely as other bloggers and so have generally refrained from jumping into the debate. (An exception is here, where I noted the fervent opposition to the Intelligence Agencis Protection Act, when it was introduced, by many organizations now salivating for indictments under it.)
Still, I was struck by the following sentence in a Washington Post article today by Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus on Joseph Wilson:
Wilson’s central assertion — disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.
Excuse me, but how could “postwar weapons inspections” in Iraq possibly disprove the assertion that before the war “Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger”?
Many observers more knowledgeable than I are convinced that, Wilson’s claims notwithstanding, he did not disprove that assertion at all. For example, yesterday Michael Barone wrote:
As the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report in July 2004, just about everything Wilson said publicly about his trip to Niger was untrue. He said that he had discredited reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. But the CIA people to whom he reported concluded that, if anything, he substantiated such reports.
In July, Christopher Hitchens wrote in Slate that
according to unrefuted intelligence-gathering from British and other European intelligence agencies, [the government of Niger was] covertly discussing sanctions-breaking sales of its uranium to a number of outlaw regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein.
Perhaps Barone and Hitchens and the Senate Intelligence Committee are wrong about what Wilson found, or did not find, in his trip to Niger, but it is difficult to see how “postwar weapons inspections” in Iraq could establish that.
“Wilson’s central assertion — disputing President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger — has been validated by postwar weapons inspections.”
I thought it was validated by the white house when they withdrew the famous 16 words.
Excuse me, but how could “postwar weapons inspections” in Iraq possibly disprove the assertion that before the war “Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger”?
Better yet, John, but how could that be Bush’s claim when he never mentioned the word Niger? Not once. All Bush said was Africa.
Iraq sought uranium from Africa. That’s it. Wilson didn’t address that, let alone disprove it.
Actus knows that.
But if you repeat a falsehood enough times, there may be one or two of the terminally gullible who will believe.
Actus writes:
>>>”I thought it was validated by the white house when they withdrew the famous 16 words.”
It’s amazing that the only statements that have to be substantiated, or verified by documentation or research are those NOT made by the President of the United States.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/cHENEY-CLAUS-NATIONAL.gif
–Cobra