I Have Three Words For Their "16 Word" Coverage

[UPDATE: Good news, Bad news - in a later edition of this story (which appears in my Dead Tree version), they move the news about the Niger-uranium link UP to the sixth paragraph. The Bad News is that they mis-state a conclusion of the US Senate Intelligence report. Gregory Djerejian goes after this version of their story.]

The NY Times splashes some ink on the newly released Butler report, but just grazes the question of greatest interest to their American readers - what about the President's State of the Union address, and the once-infamous "16 Words":

The British findings departed from the American report last week in several key areas. Firstly, Lord Butler said Britain had received information from "several different sources" to substantiate reports that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger, an assertion dismissed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That is it. And placement? I am afraid to count; it is the fifth paragraph from the bottom, or, roughly, the thirtieth paragraph of the story.

Somehow the Times missed this tidbit from the Butler report:

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

Do they seriously not find that to be newsworthy? They found space for this, around paragraph 22:

"We went to war under a false premise," said Alice Mahon, an anti-war Labor legislator. "We went to war on George Bush's timetable."

A year ago, on July 20, 2003, the Sunday NY Times ran a piece titled "How Powerful Can 16 Words Be?" by Christopher Marquis.

A few excerpts:

Mr. Bush portrayed the United States as under an imminent threat from Iraq. In 16 words, he passed along this chilling information: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A nuclear Iraq? That carried so much freight with ordinary Americans. Concerns about biological or chemical weapons, the possibility of a Baghdad alliance with Al Qaeda — these worries paled when compared with the prospect that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program and might share weapons with terrorists.

...Today, those 16 words haunt the administration. They are the best-remembered flourish in a portrait of Iraq that today seems unrecognizable. They are a leading rationale for a war that has resulted in the death of 224 Americans. And they are either unsubstantiated or based on a lie.

Perhaps the Times can provide an anniversary piece - "How Invisible Can 16 Words Be?"

I have three words for their "16 Words" coverage - "Where is it?"

MORE: Additional glimpses of their coverage a year ago.

We are especialy intrigued by this editorial titled "The Vanishing Uranium".

And we note that today's story is datelined London, and is by Alan Cowell, who seems to be on the British beat. Still, how the editors left out a bit of news of topical interest in the US is a puzzle.

UPDATE: The WaPo buries it, and does not mention the 16 Words, but does say this:

But the report defended as "well founded" the dossier's claim that Iraq had sought to obtain enriched uranium from African countries. The CIA has questioned the claim, saying it was based on forged papers, but the Butler panel said there were other sources for the assertion.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

And still no Joseph Wilson sightings.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

My favorite 40 year old mini-skirted blonde points out that this: http://restorehonesty.com/

has--at the bottom, if you can read that far without convulsing in laughter--this line:

Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.

[Pouncer]

http://tennessean.com/local/archives/04/07/53936299.shtml?Element_ID=53936299

"Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in Washington on Tuesday that DOE and the
Defense Department removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly
radioactive sources from a former nuclear research facility in Iraq."

Are there uranium mines in Iraq? No?

Did the Baathists buy uranium in, maybe, Anarctica?

No?

Europe? From our friends and allies in France and Germany? C'est impossible!

Uhm. Which continent do you suppose the uranium did come from?

(I point out to the tinfoil hat wearers among the audience that Gulf War One was noted for use of DEPLETED uranium ammunition -- it's not like Wyoming uranium from North American was expended in anti-tank ammunition, scavenged by schoolchildren in the 1990's, and enriched from zero by the brilliant Iraqi nuclear engineers.)

[Old Grouch]

In my copy of today's national (midwest) edition, the paragraph you cite is the fifth (or sixth, they separate the first sentence) in the story, but shows signs of revision:

"...reports that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from Niger. [No change to this point.] The Senate report found that similar claims by American intelligence, which found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address last year, were based on a single set of forged documents."

BTW, the story is on page A6, with the headline British Report Faults Prewar Intelligence but Clears Blair.

A sidebar headed The Highlights: British Intelligence Report's Findings has this as the fourth (and last) item:

Uranium from Niger: Britan had credible evidence that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger but inconclusive evidence that Iraq had actually purchased it. The evidence was established independent of documents, subsequently shown to be forgeries, that Iraq had procured uranium from Niger.

So the basic info is there (in two places), but the Times doesn't bother to connect the dots.

It's almost like reading Pravda, back in the old Soviet days...

[Matt]

Pouncer -

I think you are misinterpreting the story. Iraq did have tons of uranium in country that was bought from Africa in the '80's - it has been under lock and key and supervised by the IAEA since the first UN inspection regimes were sent after Gulf War 1. This is what Spencer Abraham is talking about in terms of removal - there is no evidence that new (post 1991) uranium was imported.

[IceCold]

"The Senate report found that similar claims by American intelligence, which found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address last year, were based on a single set of forged documents."

Huh? The Sixteen Words referred to a BRITISH intel report. Did I miss something? Where is the SOTU line containing a reference to an American intel report based on forged documents?

Unless I've missed such a line, or unless this is just an implausibly convenient and horrible mistake in the wording, the WaPo story is (yet another) egregious and indefensible factual error that has the effect of propping up the basic distortion that rendered Wilson a non-story from the get -go.

Free of charge to the WaPo, here's their rewrite:

"The Senate report found that claims by American intelligence, similar to those of a British intelligence assessment referred to in President Bush's State of the Union address last year, were based on a single set of forged documents. The British report referenced in the SOTU was based on different information and concerned African uranium sources other than Niger, and it has been defended as well-founded both by British intelligence agencies and independent parliamentary investigations."

[TM]

Patrick, the "restore Honesty" link is priceless - it includes lots of link to Wilson material - one good one is this interview with Andrea Mitchell.

But I especially love the link to "Kerry Calls for Special Counsel in Wilson Investigation", which leads to a 404 at Kerry's website.

We have it here, if you scroll down. Innocuous, but fun.

So, is Wilson still a Kerry advisor, or is he a full time Pirate of the Caribbean?

[Forbes]

In light of the comment by Evan Thomas (assistant managing editor of Newsweek, on the Inside Washington program--CBS affiliated WUSA-TV) that "The media, I think, wants Kerry to win," why should the press make any of this Joe Wilson/uranium/CIA/British intelligence story clear?

In clearing it up, it would point out media bias, and it would be against their interest to promote Kerry and defeat Bush.

I also think Minuteman's discription of the non-reporting is accurate, it's more like a cut-and-paste job, just recycling their orginal spin.

For example, the reports all seem to keep discussing the "forgeries," while the Senate and Butler reports correct the record regarding this detail.

The media is just unwilling to state that what they reported was wrong--it must be Bush's fault.

[HH]

Salon calls Wilson a hero, WorldNetDaily gives us 10 reasons not to trust him... A happy week for Joseph Farah, as David Talbot whistles past the graveyard (something he's used to).