Powered by TypePad

« One Real Turkey In Baghdad | Main | Read The Prospectus, Andrew »

July 14, 2004


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.



"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?


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...


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.


"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."


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?


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.


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).

The comments to this entry are closed.