The WSJ runs an editorial blasting Joe Wilson which is sure to catch the eye of the NY Times, and may answer my question of whether Nick Kristof can duck this:
...in any event, we'd think that the news outlets that broadcast Mr. Wilson's story over the past year would want to retrace their own missteps.
Mr. Wilson made three separate appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press," according to the Weekly Standard. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof first brought the still anonymous Niger envoy to public attention in May 2003, so he too must feel burned by his source. Alone among major sellers of the Wilson story, the Washington Post has done an admirable job so far of correcting the record.
We hope the Times remembers that Mr. Wilson has suggested that Nick Kristof misattributed or misquoted him, so the source is getting a bit snippy.
W are also quite sure that the Times reads the WSJ editorial page carefully, since they quoted it in their catch-up piece last Sunday (excerpts here).
That said, Mr. Wilson has polished his soundbites - CNN asked the easy questions, and he did fine:
WILSON: Well, again, the "Wall Street" editorial page, I believe, is part of this smear campaign and that they just simply don't know what they're talking about. The facts are clear. The 16 words should not have been in the State of the Union address. The president, or the White House, has acknowledged that. This transaction did not and could not have taken place. And my role in this was, as I reported in the "New York Times," was a very small one.
Go back and read the original opinion piece.
We will accept that the transaction did not take place, and note that that is somewhat beside the point, since the question was of Saddam's demand rather than Niger's supply.
And the NY Times certainly reported different things about his role, as noted above. But it is a good answer for those who want to believe.
Glad to see you accept that the transaction did not take place. Apparently, Joe Wilson went to Niger looking for threats to U. S. security. He found none, because there were none.
One short meeting, 5 years ago, with an Iraqi who never even said what he was after (if anything), does not sound like a threat to the USA. Wilson reported back that there was zero chance that Iraq would actually get yellowcake from Niger. There is no evidence yet presented that he was wrong.
The issue is not now, nor has it ever been, whether Bush "lied". The 16 words were probably true. The reason they did not belong in the SOTU is that they were irrelevant. Doubly irrelevant.
1. Maybe Saddam "sought" uranium, but he didn't procure any.
2. Saddam already had 550 tons of yellowcake. Even if he got more, that in theory could be processed without being discovered by the annual IAEA inspection, it would require a processing plant and several years of work to come close to producing a weapon.
The entire rationale for going to war based on the Niger connection was simply false. Sorry, guys.
Posted by: raygunnot | July 20, 2004 at 09:11 PM
Ex post, ex ante, good faith, bad faith.
Posted by: TM | July 20, 2004 at 10:40 PM