Niger Uranium - Republicans Shouldn’t Apologize
Sat July 12th, 2003 12:55 MST[RELATED UPDATES: See Niger Uranium - The French Connection and Niger Uranium - WHY the Forgeries?]
When I bemoaned the outrageous press bias (and outright lies) about the Bush Iraq-Africa-Uranium statement, my friend commented that the Republicans were handling the incident poorly. And he is right.
Why are Republicans apologizing? Bush didn’t lie. His information was not based on the bad intelligence so often mentioned (forged documents). More on this later.
The whole issue is, of course, trivial to begin with. It was one sentence in a long speech. It was a tiny piece of a substantial argument about Iraq’s WMD capability, a capability fully accepted by the whole world and even the Democrats just months before!
But suddenly, all has changed. All of this prior history has been forgotten. Because Saddam’s devastated, shocked and demoralized army didn’t “slime” our troops, Bush must have been lying about WMD’s. Because the Iraqi’s chose to not be caught with their WMD’s after an inevitably successful invasion, Bush was lying.
The way the press and the Democrats are jumping on this is very telling: it shows both how desperate the left is and how biased the media coverage will be during next year’s election, when it really counts.
Somehow the Democrats and their syncophants in the major networks and New York Times imagine that, with this issue, they can convince the American people that the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was a neo-conservative plot to justify Bush stealing Iraqi oil for Enron, or some such nonsense. Sadly, the primary effect will be to further damage the image of the nation overseas. Americans have too much common sense to be taken in by this silliness.
I suspect the main reason this issue has been handled so badly by the White House is because it is so trivial that they had no plan to deal with it. And it hit during the summer news doldrums, while staffers are on vacation and the President is out of the country. But still, they should have been ready. They should know that the most trivial will be blown out of proportion by today’s hostile media.
They should recognize that the media elite is not merely biased… they HATE George Bush they same way they hated Ronald Reagan. He has driven the left wing elite crazy, first by getting elected (illegitimately in their minds), with his successes, and with his attitude.
So the White House and Republicans in general need to be on the alert. They need to recognize that the enemy has a tremendous “force multiplier” in ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, AKA The Great Left Wing Media Conspiracy™. The playing field is far from level. The right must be ready for asymmetrical political warfare!
Anyway… The Facts of this Issue
…just in case the media has confused anyone out there…
If you followed any of the major networks, you would think that George Bush said that Iraq bought uranium from Niger. But that is not what he said. The exact quote is: ” The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
And the British government today stands by that statement. To confuse things a bit more, it turns out that shortly after Bush said this, forged papers were publicized purporting to show that Iraq was trying to get Uranium from Niger. Much was made of how the US was fooled by this “faulty intelligence,” and indeed the CIA and the Brits may have been confused by this. But the British say that this was *not* the only source of their intelligence, and it was the British intelligence to whom Bush referred. Furthermore, Niger had a history of selling uanium to Iraq.
The information about these forgeries was public well before the war started, and yet the President’s statements now in dispute were not questioned by those making so much noise today! This is probably because they, like the rest of the world, expected that the US would indeed find a nuclear weapons WMD program (and keep in mind that we *did* find lots of uranium at Tuwaitha).
More FUD turned up when Joseph C. Wilson, a former diplomat, wrote an editorial for the leader of The Great Left Wing Media Conspiracy™, the New York Times. He proclaimed that, while on an 8 day mission to Niger in February 2002, he determined there was no plan to trade Uranium between Niger and Iraq. Wilson accused Bush of making the uranium statement based on false information about Niger, and he accused the White House of twisting the evidence. But how did Wilson know that the Niger information was the basis for Bush’s statement? Bush didn’t mention Niger, but rather Africa. Britain and the US had intelligence that Iraq appeared to be seeking uranium from other African countries. Did Wilson know this? How? The British claim that the intelligence they used was more recent than Wilson’s visit to Niger. One also has to question why Wilson waited until now - after the war which he claims was started based on false information - to make his accusations.
Finally, just before this controversy took off, an Iraqi nuclear scientist led American investigators to uranium enrichment technology (centrifuge parts) which had been buried in his rose garden at the order of the Saddam regime. This material was exactly the sort of banned nuclear WMD technology that Hans Blix was searching for! It’s careful burial (along with many document buried with it) clearly establishes that Iraq was planning on restarting its nuclear weapons program in the future, and was planning to enrich uranium.
So why are the Republicans apologizing for this non-error?
Beats me!
For a small non-error, you just wrote an awful lot about it.
Actually, I wrote a whole lot about the issue because the press and the democrats have been blabbing so much about this very small error!
If Bush wasn’t talking about Niger in the speech, why did the CIA send Wilson to that country to investigate?
David, see the latest article in this blog for an answer.
WAKE UP. You were lied to. The war was a sham. Bush is a criminal, a liar, and murderer. The sooner the American public wakes up to this worst of all presidencies, the better.
Here’s more.
If the media is truly controlled by the left wing, then why did so many GOPers vote to consolidate media power? Why would they hand over control of the media to the opposition? You just bought another great lie. Left leaning media? GOPspeak for “They caught us!”
Haven’t you ever heard of “Journalistic Integrity?” This means that the what and how “professional” journalists report is not supposed to be controlled by management. And this fiction has allowed journalists to put out a left-wing agenda even when the owners themselves are not left wing.
Fox News is an exception. Rupert Murdoch is more or less conservative, although you will note that his station has not reported on the massive anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong.
Capitalists who own media stations are usually interested in money, not politics. It is a common leftist mistake to believe that a media owned by capitalists cannot itself be leftist. This is based on the assumption that ownership exercises editorial control. In fact, the primary editorial control exercised is to keep out reports that would harm the owner… not ideological control.
I have hardly bought into another great lie. I have been watching the media for decades, and I have been involved in cases where I had direct access to the facts and watched the media apply left wing spin. In most other cases, it is not hard to find out what is really going on, and compare it to how the media reports it, and whiff out whatever bias is there - left or right.
I used to monitor Radio Moscow and Radio Havana, starting in the early ’60s. By the mid ’80s, Radio Moscow, on average, was more credible than the major US TV networks, and on most issues, less leftist! This isn’t something anyone fooled me with… this is my own observation.
So I would say you just bought into a great lie: that the media cannot be leftist because it is owned by capitalists.
Oh, and btw, many capitalists themselves are leftists in their politics.
Life is just a bit more complicated than your understanding of it.
Interesting how Republicans bury their heads in the sand and refuse to recognize facts that have gotten us into a deadly and expensive mess in Iraq. Keep living in your dream world, guys. If gnorance is bliss, you must be very happy.
Just a Suggestion
I recently got a comment from John Moore letting me know that he is an Arizona blogger as well. It seems my neighborhood is full of interesting, intelligent folks. You will find Useful Fools listed on my sidebar, but I…
Seems to me your arguing semantics. Sure, Bush didn’t say it was true, he just said the British had learned it. Therefore, technically it wasn’t a lie. That’s essentially what you’re saying –even though the CIA knew it wasn’t true and informed the administration prior to the State of the Union address, and it was taken out of a previous speech for the very reason that everybody knew the lead was a hoax.
You want to forget those sixteen words? Okay, forget them.
Now… on to alluminum tubes. Bush said they were “suitable for nuclear weapons production,” although they were PROVEN not to be by scientists and weapons inspectors. I suppose you’re going to argue the definition of “suitable.”
And the “fleet” of unmanned aircraft. Bush said they could be used “for missions targeting the United States,” although the Iraq’s few unmanned aircraft had nowhere near the range required to reach the United States. Undoubtedly what he meant by “the United States” was US troops stationed in Kuwait.
And on May 31st when Bush said “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” and all they had found were trailers for hydrogen production, what about that?
And when Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln beneath a banner reading “Mission Accomplished” (tell that to the soldiers), and said, “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda,” what evidence was he citing?
And only last month when he said of Saddam, “We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in,” could he have forgotten that it was he, not Saddam, who ordered the inspectors out — because we were about to invade.
I could keep on going with this… but I think you can see the pattern. It isn’t just those 16 words, it is systematic and intentional lying and twisting of information in order to get the public behind a war that he had decided to wage on September 12, 2001. But I guess it’s no big deal… I mean it’s not like this is an important issue of national security, like a stain on a blue dress.
Furthermore the “liberal media” has been rather slow in picking up this thread, focusing instead on Kobe Bryant. Could it be the liberal media ain’t so liberal? There is more than enough information above to smear the hell out of Bush, but the “liberal media” is quite reserved. Then again, it’s all in your perspective. When you’re as far right as John Moore seems to be, everything you see is left.
some guy…
As I have posted in detail about the 16 words, there is far more to it than what you imply. The fact that there was *one* piece of disinformation in a body of intelligence doesn’t make the intelligence bad. The hoo-hah about the 16 words is just desperate thrashing by people who can’t find anything substantive to argue about.
The aluminum tubes: they are dual use. Contrary to what you say, some experts say they are useful for building centrifuges. Given that we have FOUND one of these centrifuges, would you argue that Bush was wrong to talk about Saddam trying to reinstate his nuclear program, or are you just picking nits.
The unmanned aircraft. None of them had the range to reach the US. All of them could be flown to near the US (say, Mexico), loaded with chemical or biological agents, and flown into the US. Furthermore they were a direct threat to Israel. Your problem is a failure to consider alternative scenarios to a direct flight.
The biological laboratories were just that. I realize you are very happy to take the word of Iraqi weapons scientists (who have every reason to lie) over that of the President of the United States… this is a peculiarity of the left I have noticed. Did you look at the pictures and diagrams of the trailers? Do you know how EASY it is to make hydrogen and how little equipment it takes? Guess what! It doesn’t take three trucks - it takes one little reactor that you dumb a few chemicals into. On the other hand, many biological weapons are hard to transport, because they are living organisms that must be kept a fixed temperatures, must be fed, and must have their wastes removed. This is a sophisticated process. Thus for those agents it makes sense to grow them in trucks, haul them to near the battle area, and then load munitions directly from the trucks. Duh.
Among other things, we removed Ansar al Islam, an ally of Al Queda that was holed up in Iraq! Furthermore, there are many things tying Iraq to Al Quaeda. And only an idiot would leave an evil nation with nasty weapons around to provide them to terrorists - even if they hadn’t yet set up the full interface. “The enemey of my enemy is my friend” - both Saddam and Bin Laden believe this.
Yes, you can keep on going. I can see the pattern. You can take all sorts of little things and twist them.
As far as the liberal media, they have been all over this stuff. They are, however, being fed by better propandists than you, who will trickle this stuff out in press releases on ’scandal’ at a time in order to inflict greater damage on Bush’s reputation (not caring that they are hurting the US’s reputation at the same time).
The reason all this little crap is being picked up is because the left cannot come up with anything big. They want to believe that the US was mislead into war, but they cannot come up with anything really substantive.
For example, nothing you say refutes Bush’s assertyion that Saddam had an desire and was acquiring abilities to produce nuclear weapons. That Saddam was smart enough to bury this stuff while the inspectors were around (the centrifuge was in a scientist’s rose garden, for example) should not be a surprise. It doesn’t mean he stopped his program. It means he temporarily suspended them, since he knew that the US could not afford to keep forces in Kuwait forever, and as soon as we pulled them out, he could kick out the inspectors. Furthermore, even with them there, he could move the stuff around and conceal them. The left tends to forget that inspection is designed to work with cooperative regimes, and Iraq was required to cooperate, which it didn’t.
So what’s your point? A few items of intelligence that Bush mentioned, none of which have been proven wrong.
So shall we instead go to the presidents of the left? Bill Clinton lied repeatedly about foreign affairs. His campaign took money from the Chinese government and responded by granting them great favors. He told us our troops would be in Kosovo “no more than one year” - they are still there.
Or should we take Roosevelt, who intentionally provoked the Japanese into World War II (although he probably expected an attack on American forces in the Phillipines, not Pearl Harbor). Roosevelt also bypassed congress by sending US warships to Britain (a violation of the law).
Of course the left is complaining about the quality of the intelligence, after brutally stripping the CIA of its humint capabilities during the Clinton administration, capabilities already drastically weakened by the Church committee in the 70’s.
etc.
This Niger-Uranium story is incredible and deserves more attention from a cultural perspective.
Africa has a lot of natural resources, most of which they are not aware of. Does Niger or any advanced African country have the capacity to investigate resources as valuable as Uraniun ore?
They are not prone to exploit their mountains and rivers for the tourist dollars, let alone exploit such technically sophicticated resource as U232++.
Niger is the third largest exporter of Uranium in the world. Check your facts before citing the “noble savage” argument.