Powered by TypePad

« Now The AP Fingers The Times | Main | I Can Recommend A Book To Joe Wilson »

July 19, 2004



And the beat goes on:

“Among other recent successes, the bureau's admirers say, was a classified report in 2003 that criticized the Bush administration view that a victory in Iraq would help spread democracy across the Arab world. It also predicted correctly that Turkey might not permit American troops to cross its territory en route to Iraq and dismissed as "highly dubious" a British contention, NOW DISCREDITED [emphasis mine], that Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Niger.” ("Tiny Agency's Iraq Analysis Is Better Than Big Rivals'", by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, 7/19/2004).

To sum up, the British contention--Iraq sought uranium from Africa-- was:

"reasonable" (ISC report, 9/9/03)
"well-founded" (Butler report, 7/14/04)
"...I don’t know..." (Sen. Roberts, AP 7/18/04)
"..., now discredited..." (NYT, 7/19/04)



The NYT is unbelievable. The idea that it would make that claim after the publication of the Butler report is astonishing, moreso because the Wilson story was clearly on the ropes as early as June 28, when the Financial Times reported on the alternative British intelligence for the yellowcake transaction.


It's reputation rehabilitation week! I wonder if the Weekly Standard, NRO and a host of other scapegoaters will review their scathing commentaries blaming the State Dept for the rising and the setting of the sun and everything under, and accept responsibility that they may have mis-spoken about some things for which they had no idea and that they ultimately unecessarily muddied the waters and diminished healthy democratic dialogue? It seems not only fashionable to do but also honorable.


It seems not only fashionable to do but also honorable.

I missed that fashion, at least as it relates to blogo-folks admitting that Wilson may have a bit of a credibility problem. Will he get another TIME cover, one wonders?

Anyway, the good news is , we do have more than one Intel agency - I like competition.

Secondly, I can only guess that Reg is being argumentative - it would be great (I guess) if the intel Bush was citing in the SOTU had stood up. However, he is not lying unless he presented it in bad faith.

The comments to this entry are closed.