One of my favorite websites, the Daily Howler, has been getting flamed by loyal readers who cannot fathom that the incomparable analysis offered by the site seems to be defending the Bush administration in regards to the Niger uranium story. But since they have exposed so many examples of administration dissembling and press corps complicity, they deserve to be heard on this count. Further, they are neither defending nor accusing the administration in the matter. They are simply pointing out how incompetent the press is, even when they muster the cajones to criticize our boy king. (Which, admit it, lends credibility to all the times they have ripped the press for falsely maligning Al Gore, Democrats, or liberals.)
The primary point is that rather than doing investigatory reporting, the press would rather develop a Preferred Story and beat it into the ground, facts be damned. The facts the Daily Howler keeps trying to point out are as follows:
- In the famous "16 words" of his SOTU speech, Bush cited British intelligence, and the Brits stand behind their conclusions to this day. Significantly, it appears that the British had intel on the Congo, which if true, would render forged documents from Niger irrelevant.
- Bush claimed Hussein sought uranium, not that he obtained it. Even if the documents are forged (which no one seems to dispute), one cannot draw any conclusions about whether Hussein sought uranium or not.
- Bush referred to Africa, not Niger specifically, leaving open the implication that any uranium-producing African nation might be under suspicion.
All of these points hinge on one thing: additional, credible intelligence that Hussein sought uranium from some other African nation. There appears to be evidence that the British have something in their possession, but no one has as of yet uncovered what exactly it is. Worse, very few reporters are trying.
All true. And yet the Howler has avoided some pretty obvious questions. Sure, sure, they like to restrict their discussions to the known facts. But just as a president has to make decisions on incomplete information, so too must citizens in a democracy form opinions on incomplete information. Our incomplete information would answer the following questions:
- If this additional evidence exists, why is it not being released by either the British or American governments?
- If this additional evidence exists, and cannot be released for security reasons, why are they at least not telling us that much?
- If this additional evidence exists, is it as shaky as all the other Iraqi intelligence we have obtained since 1998, when inspectors left the country?
- If this additional evidence exists, then the "16 words" are completely defensible (except for the word "learned"). Why did the administration admit the sentence shouldn't have been in the SOTU address?
- If this additional evidence exists, why are Bush administration officials falling on their swords to protect him?
- If this additional evidence exists, why was it necessary to ruin the career of the wife of Ambassador Wilson, the whistle blower on the Niger story, by exposing her as a CIA operative? (If this is true, then two senior administration officials have committed treason, all in the service of spin control.)
It is damn near impossible to come up with answers to any of these questions that put the administration in a favorable light. Assuming the Howler is right, the administration could clear things up with a competently run press conference. I suspect there is a reason they cannot (besides mere incompetence).
This is the last I'll write about Niger, unless that new evidence is exposed. Bush tells too many lies in too many speeches to focus too intently on these relatively benign sixteen words. After all, when conservative supporters repeated Bush's lies for justifying going to war in Iraq, the Niger uranium lie was never near the top of the list.
9:41:39 PM 
|
|
