Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New look at Bush's `16 words'
Boston Globe ^ | July 11, 2004 | Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe Columnist

Posted on 07/12/2004 3:45:01 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô

LAST YEAR at this time, the media were in full scandal mode over 16 words that President Bush had spoken nearly six months earlier.

"The British government has learned," Bush had said in his State of the Union address in January, "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A furor erupted over that statement when a CIA consultant and ex-diplomat named Joseph Wilson, who had gone to Niger in 2002 to look into the matter, publicly claimed that the charge wasn't true. The White House agreed that the line shouldn't have been in Bush's speech, but far from quelling the uproar, that admission only intensified it.

...edited...

Upshot: Bush's credibility took a blow, support for the war in Iraq was undermined, and the idea that Saddam's regime had tried to acquire refined uranium in Africa for use in nuclear weapons was dismissed as false.

But what if it was true?

Late last month, the Financial Times reported that, according to European intelligence agencies, Iraq was one of five countries negotiating with smugglers in Niger for the illegal purchase of uranium yellowcake. "These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier . . . that Iraq sought to buy uranium from an African country," the Financial Times reported in a front-page story on June 27. For some reason, though, the US media showed virtually no interest in that revelation. (One exception: columnist William Safire in The New York Times.)

A few days ago, the Financial Times was back with more news: An independent British commission investigating the government's use of intelligence during the runup to the war in Iraq, the paper reported on Wednesday, "is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger."

But this, too, has been largely ignored by the American press. Curious, no? Journalists couldn't get enough of this topic when the story line was that Bush and the British had lied. Shouldn't they find it just as riveting when facts point in the other direction?

Here's another fact, this one from a recent book by a one-time US ambassador: In 1999, Saddam's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf approached an official of Niger to talk about expanding trade, an approach the official interpreted as a possible attempt to buy uranium. The author of the book? None other than Joseph Wilson -- the man who accused the Bush administration last year of making up an Iraqi interest in uranium from Africa. Now, it seems, he comes close to confirming that interest. Yet except for a single story in The Washington Post, the media have had virtually nothing to say about Wilson's new account. To be sure, none of this proves that Saddam's agents sought uranium for use in nuclear weapons. What it proves is that reasonable people had good reason to believe that that's what Saddam's agents were doing. Just as reasonable people had good reason to believe that Iraq was armed with biological or chemical weapons. Remember: That was the deeply held consensus of the US intelligence community. It was affirmed by Republicans and Democrats, by Americans and Europeans, by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration, and by a unanimous UN Security Council.

Only in the wake of Iraq's liberation has it become fashionable to assert not just that there were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but that only a liar would have said there were. And only now have the media, in their eagerness to discredit Bush, been reluctant to cover stories that prove otherwise.

Intelligence failures are not the same thing as lies. And intelligence failures about Iraqi WMD did not begin with the Bush administration. It is worth recalling that the CIA was way off the mark in its estimates of Saddam's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs before the first Iraq war, too. It turned out then that Saddam was a much more dangerous WMD menace than the experts had realized. This time around, the experts may have overestimated the threat.

But if intelligence mistakes are inevitable, is it better to worry too much about potential threats or to worry too little? Worrying too much -- if that's what happened -- resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants. Worrying too little resulted in 9/11.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 16words; bostonglobe; cia; credibility; failures; financialtimes; howarddean; intelligence; joewilson; liar; lies; niger; nuclearweapons; saddam; smugglers; sudan; traitor; uranium; wmd; yellowcake
Jacoby provides a better perspective on 'intelligence failures' - hopefully the undecided voters are listening!!
1 posted on 07/12/2004 3:45:02 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô

Of course the US media is not listening. They've successfully fooled the American people. They aren't going to revisit their own lies now.


2 posted on 07/12/2004 3:52:59 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Keep this info on file for the Fall Debates Mr. President; keep everything on file and come October, blow them away.


3 posted on 07/12/2004 4:02:13 AM PDT by no dems ("Gay marriage" is an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Of course you are correct about the media, I am just hoping there are enough voters that have seen through the media's Bush bashing so that we can return GWB for 4 more years!


4 posted on 07/12/2004 4:18:54 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô (A BUSH VOTE IS A VOTE FOR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Worrying too much -- if that's what happened -- resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants. Worrying too little resulted in 9/11.
^^^^^

And parallel investigations are blaming the Bush Administration for both situations.

Americans who have traveled abroad are aware of how little International news is made available by our major media outlets, resulting in a serious lack of knowledge of others countries by Americans.

Now we are seeing how these outlets are NOT informing Americans of NEWS that is favorable to President Bush. The average non-news junkie only learns news when it becomes pop-think, not when the token conservative in a paper writes an op-ed.

"Bush Lied" is what the 'rats hope will become a majority opinion.

"Halliburton bad" has been sold to Americans, but have there been articles explaining the history and mission of Halliburton? No.

We have to consider this black-out media with the animosity that they feel for Fox, Rush, etc.

We need to get publicity to the concept that Americans are being LIED TO by their trusted media.

Letters to Editors and/or phone calls to the paper's ombudsmen to ask why a certain news item has NOT been covered is a worthwhile effort. Phoning the newsroom of talkradio stations to complain about what we hear every 30 minutes in the "news" breaks, is also valuable as a heads-up to the news director that we are hearing BIAS in their "news," Even if the "news" is a network feed, it is important to let the local director know that we are displeased.


5 posted on 07/12/2004 4:21:13 AM PDT by maica (Hitlary says; "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô
I wouldn't expect the Globe to print this story unless Jacoby wrote about it. The story needs to be told. The press isn't going to say anything about it, so the Republicans had better do it themselves.

I hope those who say Bush will be re-elected in a land slide are right, but I also hope Republicans don't believe that and fight like hell to get Bush re-elected. Gore would have ignored Saddam and Saddam would have gotten the uranium he was looking for. Same for Kerry.

There's too much at stake to let the Dems have power. Bush needs to finish what the terrorists started.

6 posted on 07/12/2004 4:28:11 AM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GBA
When I heard the line on TV live, it was 18 words.  The globe is leaving out the beginning "And furthermore,".  The opening is an essential part because the fact is that the uranium was just one of many reasons for action.
7 posted on 07/12/2004 5:17:44 AM PDT by expat_panama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô

BUMP!


8 posted on 07/12/2004 5:22:19 AM PDT by jmstein7 (A Judge not bound by the original meaning of the Constitution interprets nothing but his own mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô
Tell your grandchildren you were there when the modern American hero said:

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." - President George W. Bush


9 posted on 07/12/2004 5:25:28 AM PDT by Stallone (Democratic Party is Al Qaeda's Fifth Column In America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô
Worrying too much -- if that's what happened -- resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants. Worrying too little resulted in 9/11.

Worth the price of admission.

Dan

10 posted on 07/12/2004 5:28:42 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat_panama

Good point!


11 posted on 07/12/2004 6:43:10 AM PDT by maica (Hitlary says; "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô

If it supports the President, it will be in the tiny type somewhere in the nether regions of Whoopi . . . (sorry, still thinking about a previous article) . . . nether regions of the paper if it makes it into print at all.


12 posted on 07/12/2004 8:18:31 AM PDT by DustyMoment (Repeal CFR NOW!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmstein7

Thanks for the Bump!!


13 posted on 07/12/2004 8:20:19 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô (A BUSH VOTE IS A VOTE FOR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GBA
Yes, you are right, none of us can even contemplate a GWB "landslide" - it should not be in any of our posts or thoughts!!!

We need to work hard to ensure that GWB returns for four more years!

As for Jacoby and the Globe, Jeff J is a godsend!! He is the only columnist that the Globe has kept employed that has a rational view and the ability to discuss difficult issues. Everyone should send their compliments to the Globe editors for keeping Jacoby on staff...

GWB - Four More Years!

14 posted on 07/12/2004 8:41:47 AM PDT by HowardLSmith.ô¿ô (A BUSH VOTE IS A VOTE FOR SECURITY AND PROSPERITY!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: HowardLSmith.ô¿ô

Bump!


15 posted on 07/12/2004 12:41:14 PM PDT by windchime (Where in the world is Joseph C. Wilson?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson