Skip to comments.How Niger Uranium Story Defied Wide Skepticism
Posted on 07/13/2004 9:24:48 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
click here to read article
"The Senate found that the C.I.A. never contacted the businessman. "No one even thought to do that," an agency official told the Senate committee."
You have got to be kidding me..
The article seems to use the fact that they did not find the uranium in the warehouse in Benin as proof that Iraq was not trying to obtain it. The fact that Wilson said Iraq wanted to talk about trade but had not been successful does nothing to contradict the idea that Iraq was trying to acquire the uranium.
I'm kind of sleepy but it seems to me that this became a major political issue when the lying Mr. Wilson wrote the NYT published op-ed. This after his several week long whispering campaign where he was referenced in both the NYT and WAPO. It seems to me that the NYT is paying suitable attention to their role in propagandizing the entire issue.
Correction, the NYT isn't paying suitable attention.
"His address suddenly gave the uranium issue high visibility, but it could not withstand global scrutiny"
This article is actually pretty good for the NYSlimes, but isn't the above statement false? Aren't the British and others STILL maintaining they were right about this issue, and therefore Bush ALSO was right in his speech?
My husband is convinced that the CIA (i.e. Tenet) set up Bush....maybe he's right?
Caught by truth they spin.
Wrap a string around them and pull.
You're right, but I think the somewhat "factual" tone of this article is better than most, probably because of their hype of Wilson's lies.
But I'm not holding my breath...they'll be back tomorrow with a new attack.
I think this needs to be excerpted
"Aren't the British and others STILL maintaining they were right about this issue, and therefore Bush ALSO was right in his speech?"
Yes they are.
And the evidence they have isn't the forged papers.
On top of that significant amounts of "yellow cake" have been found in Iraq from the reports I remember reading.
The NYT touted Wilson's lies on the front page day after day. It has taken it a long time to do this tale, and even then Risen manages to hide the shreds of meat he does report in a pile of mashed potatoes, doesn't he?
This speaks volumes.
My position based on what I have read is:
1. Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.
2. The Brits (and others) have the proof of this.
3. George Bush believes the Brits (and the others.)
4. Joseph Wilson lied.
5. The NYT lied about this story and continues to do so because it would be DEVISTATING to their socialist cause if the American public really started to believe that Saddam was working hard on building an A-bomb.
6. This article is just part of the ongoing NYT cover-up and muddling of this very important issue.
Both Clifford May (search NRO) and Christopher Hitchens (search Slate) have published pieces today that totally debunk this NYT version of "reality." Plame helped select her husband for the Niger "fact finding" mission and both she and he are partisan Democrats. Wilson told a host of lies that the Senate report "outs" him on. Hitch even goes so far as to point out that the CIA has become a Democrat outpost for undermining Republican presidents. Both these articles are well worth seeking out but I'm too sleepy (and woozy from a bit of wine) to post both links. May's column is excellent.
That simple question obviously evades the idiots who write for newspapers.
That is my suspicion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.