Editorial pages are for opinion. But legitimate opinion journalism is constrained by facts, as nearly as we can know them as we put pen to paper. And by that measure, the Washington Post's editorial page has skidded outside the boundaries of journalistic legitimacy on any number of issues but most glaringly on our involvement in the Middle East. Today's editorial on the Bush-Cheney-Libby leak of classified portions of the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate is a case in point. One might simply say that presidents play hardball; and they play politics. And President Bush or his untethered vice president played hardball against a prominent critic by releasing information the law allowed them to release. And get over it. Politics, like life, isn't fair. And if you swipe at the president, expect to get hit back. You may not agree with that. But it's an opinion. And it contains an uncomfortably large element of fact. But the authors of this editorial don't appear to read the news pages of their own paper or their best competitors. The clock has simply run out on any attempt to claim the president and his key advisors weren't acting in bad faith with their constant advocacy of an alleged traffic in uranium between Iraq and Niger. It's over. As consistent reporting both from within the executive branch and the intelligence agencies has shown, the only reason this canard ever caught any life outside the vice president's office was not because of its credibility but rather its irrelevancy. By the time Libby came to leak more information about it months after the war, it had been still further discredited within the administration. The Post also sticks to the up-is-down claim that Wilson's trip to Niger supported rather than undermined the Niger-uranium claim. That is a viewpoint that can only be maintained if you are willfully ignorant of the backstory to the Niger canard. Wilson's report didn't add a lot to what most in the intelligence community already thought about the pretended Niger story. But that was because it tended to confirm the reasons why most in the intelligence community didn't find the story credible in the first place. For whatever reason, the Post has chosen to throw in its lot with the flurry of mendacious rhetoric and the white-washed investigations, all of which amount to a grand pen and paper and word game truss barely holding together the body of official lies that is still barely governing the capital. They've made their deal with power. They should justify it on those grounds rather than choosing to mislead their readers. -- Josh Marshall
JOsh, this is demonstrably false. wilson trip, "set up as a boonogle by his wife" tended to confirm the CIA view that the NIger story was legitimate. Josh, is beingg willfully obtuse, trying to conflate the CIA's assesment with that of State, from whom the above "quote" comes. read the SCSI and Robb-Silberman reports. Josh is confused, lying, or both.
Your facts are lacking. The CIA was not set up by Wilson's wife. She was involved in the meeting, but the decision to send someone to check it out did not come from Plame. The information discovered there did not back up with any credibility that Niger was supplying Saddam with yellow cake Uranium. That is not accurate. There was one quote which taken out of context might have made it seem as so, and other spin attempts trying to bash Wilson have made it seem so, but the facts say otherwise.
Do you still hold to your contention that the assessment helped support the idea that Saddam wanted to buy uranium from Nigeria? Do you still hold onto that line of reasoning? Fiztgerald has said in fact that leaks occurred specifically to target Wilson. The intel committee did not in any way shape or form prove that Wilson was lying. Wilson specified in his news conference, and in the indictment that Plame's identity was classified. I don't know where you get your information from, but you may want to try a different source. Do you still hold on to the calim that
^^^^^^ http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/ -- Wowie Zahawie Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Monday, April 10, 2006, at 4:43 PM ET In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that "now that you have come to take away our assets," the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.) At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam's regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq's interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between "secular" Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception—an Iraqi "window" into the world of open diplomacy—namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam's ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and Götterdämmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.) In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003. If the above was all that was known, it would surely be universally agreed that no responsible American administration could have overlooked such an amazingly sinister pattern. Given the past Iraqi record of surreptitious dealing, cheating of inspectors, concealment of sites and caches, and declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen," one could scarcely operate on the presumption of innocence. However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery—it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent. But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination? There seem to be only three possibilities here. Either a) American intelligence concocted the note; b) someone in Italy did so in the hope of gain; or c) it was the product of disinformation, intended to protect Niger and discredit any attention paid to the actual, real-time Zahawie visit. The CIA is certainly incompetent enough to have fouled up this badly. (I like Edward Luttwak's formulation in the March 22 Times Literary Supplement, where he writes that "there have been only two kinds of CIA secret operations: the ones that are widely known to have failed—usually because of almost unbelievably crude errors—and the ones that are not yet widely known to have failed.") Still, it almost passes belief that any American agency would fake a document that purportedly proved far more than the administration had asked and then get every important name and date wrapped round the axle. Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap. According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was—follow me closely here—that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection. Zahawie's name and IAEA connection were never mentioned by ElBaradei in his report to the United Nations, and his past career has never surfaced in print. Looking up the press of the time causes one's jaw to slump in sheer astonishment. Here, typically, is a Time magazine "exclusive" about Zahawie, written by Hassan Fattah on Oct. 1, 2003: The veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name. In a rare interview with Time, al-Zahawie outlined how forgery and circumstantial evidence was used to talk up Iraq's nuclear weapons threat, and leave him holding the smoking gun. A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: "Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all." Well, sorry for the inconvenience of the questions, then, my old IAEA and NPT "veteran" (whose nuclear qualifications go unmentioned in the Time article). Instead, we are told that Zahawie visited Niger and other West African countries to encourage them to break the embargo on flights to Baghdad, as they had broken the sanctions on Qaddafi's Libya. A bit of a lowly mission, one might think, for one of the Iraqi regime's most senior and specialized envoys. The Duelfer Report also cites "a second contact between Iraq and Niger," which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad "to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger's economic problems." According to the deposition of Ja'far Diya' Ja'far (the head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only "cash in exchange for petroleum." West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket, but you may if you wish choose to believe that a near-bankrupt African delegation from a uranium-based country traveled across a continent and a half with nothing on its mind but shopping for oil. Interagency feuding has ruined the Bush administration's capacity to make its case in public, and a high-level preference for deniable leaking has further compounded the problem. But please read my first three paragraphs again and tell me if the original story still seems innocuous to you.
^^^ Poor Chris, still carrying water for the Bushbots and holding out for that Iraq Niger connection. Sad really. He used to be a pretty good writer.
except that it's the truth. iraq did seek uranium in niger. whether they were successful or not is another question, but the famous 16 words only referred to the attempt. only the most diehard sufferers of BDS claim otherwise.
I meant to add this part in the post above. Here it is. It describes Fitzgerald's own words from his filings, and then includes some great recounting of events by Wilson himself. I know people have said things contrary to what is being stated here. But this seems pretty legit and definitive. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary of what is being put forward here? This part is from Fitzgerald himself and it lists the motive for the leaking of Plame's name as being revenge for Wilson's actions against what the whitehouse was pushing. It mentions Wilson as the target. Next they address what basso, and the President claim to be attempts to get the truth out there or correct things that weren't true. If Bush wanted people to see the truth and set the record straight why did he declassify a document that was deemed to be not credible, declassify it, but only let Libby, Cheney, and one reporter know? Is that really setting the record straight? The head of the CIA didn't even know it had been declassified. Anyway here is more with Wilson himself discussing several things including the claim which basso and others have made that Wilson's report supposedly backed up the idea that Iraq was trying to purchase Uranium in Africa. Here is Wilson discussing exactly what Fitzgerald mentioned about his wife's classified status, and some of the other points we have heard before. basso, and anyone else... Is there any part of that that you find to be inaccurate? Here is more which again states that Fitzgerald has indeed stated Plame's identity was classified. basso, is the lawyer di Genova where you are getting your information from, or is he a source that your source has been using? This sounds exactly like what you have been saying, and it appears to not be true, unless Wilson, and the media are telling bald faced lies about what Fitzgerald has said. I'm asking because it seems despite what basso claimed earlier in this thread Fitzgerald did mention Plame's status as being covert, and Wilson points out that violating that status would be a crime. Wilson also corrects the record on his report saying that it never supported the claim that Iraq wanted to buy Uranium from Niger.
So are you saying Bush, Blair, and our intelligencies are now lying when they say evidence doesn't support that conclusion?
The focus of Hitchens article also claims otherwise. Bush's own intel services also claim otherwise. Joseph Wilson also claims otherwise. Information presented by the intel agencies both to the Senate Foreign relations committe and the whitehouse also claim otherwise. Come to think of it, there are very few people who actually claim that it happened.
