Bush Was Right About Iraq's Quest For Uranium

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 16,2006 | Jon Leo

[tcrlaf]

Bush Was Right About Iraq's Quest For Uranium By John Leo

In a surprising editorial, The Washington Post deviated from the conventional anti-Bush media position on two counts. It said President Bush was right to declassify parts of a National Intelligence Estimate to make clear why he thought Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

In the orthodox narrative line, Wilson is the truth-teller and the Bush the liar. But Wilson was not speaking truthfully when he said his wife, Victoria Plame, had nothing to do with the CIA sending him to Niger. And it obviously wasn't true, as Wilson claimed, that he had found nothing to support Bush's charge about Niger when he (Wilson) had been told that the Iraqis were poking around in that uranium-rich nation.

Testifying before the Senate intelligence committee, Wilson said that the former prime minister of Niger told him he had been asked to meet with Iraqis to talk about "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries. Everybody knew what that meant; Niger has nothing much to trade other than uranium.

Christopher Hitchens made the latter point last week in a muscular column subtitled "Sorry, everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger."

[tcrlaf]

Anybody have the Link for the original Article?

[kayak]

bttt

[Para-Ord.45]

The Big Lie begins to unravel.

[OakOak]

Joe Wilson .. a perfect example of the out-of-Control Media.

He and has wife was the victim and Bush was the oppressor.

Wilson lied and lied big time. His wife went to bat for him to secure that he would be picked to make the trip. The information that Wilson would report (and the info he would ignore) was preordained. It was dishonest to select him.

.

[wizardoz]

And the editorial said ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson was wrong to think he had debunked Bush on the nuclear charge because Wilson's statements after visiting Niger actually "supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

You know, some of us had the sense to actually read exactly what Joe Wilson said, and listen again to exactly what President Bush said. So we knew this two years ago. But I welcome this editorialist to reality, however late he might be.

[tcrlaf]

*** The Big Lie begins to unravel***
The "Great Liberal Lie" has been unraveling for some time now, I'm just concerned that few seem to be noticing!!!

50 years from now, PoliSci classes will be studying this, and how so many people could be so easily decieved by DNC/Soros/Moonbat-paid propoganda.....

If we have a nation at all in 50 years.......

[Txsleuth]

I saw Christopher Hitchens making the same points that are in this article on Hairball with Chrissy Matthews..and Chrissy either talked over him, cut him off...or called him a liar...

[tcrlaf]

You know this, I know this, then why is it most Americans DO NOT??
Why does this din from the leftists go on DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY, with nary a challenge???

[MaineVoter2002]

Yes he was. Furthermore, Saddam DID have UN banned weapons and they were being found before and after the start of the war. But he was also right about Saddam's connection to Al Qaeda. THAT TRUMPS ALL. The WH seemed to drop that ball politically and they ran with and went on the defensive about WMD.

[Feiny]

We may not have one without revolution. I say split the country in half & let the liberals run one half & the conservatives run the other. It would only be a matter of time before the liberals destroyed themselves & we could take over everything again. Of course, once the liberal got control...they would be ripe for invasion as they would be defenseless..

[jazusamo]

It is good to see that some in the MSM are being forced to finally start reporting the truth.

[tcrlaf]

<<< Of course, once the liberal got control...they would be ripe for invasion as they would be defenseless..>>>

Don't be so sure...

Hitler, The Soviet Union, Saddam and others provide historical examples of what happens when leftists gain control...

Indoctrinate them at an early age, and they will commit ALL KINDS of horrific crimes in the name of the state...

[Cementjungle]

The Big Lie begins to unravel.

One would hope, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Socratic]

John Leo is allowing the truth to trump partisanship? "I can see! I can see!"

[Feiny]

Yes, but they will have no guns...as guns are the big evil with libs. No one will be armed....the ones in charge will take out their hate on their subjects.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Lefties have an Agenda:

There is a book,:

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left (Hardcover)

*******************************

And a review:

****************************************

Communism is dead. Long live Islam!, September 30, 2004

Reviewer:

Kevin Beckman (Sacramento, CA) - See all my reviews

It sounds absurd: why would Leftists make common cause with a religion that is diametrically opposed to everything the Left stands for? David Horowitz explains that it is really quite logical given the Left's first principle: America is evil and anything or anyone opposed to America is good.

Part I of the book is a brief history of 9/11 through the end of major combat operations in Iraq, and the Left's behavior during this time. Horowitz includes the reaction of Katha Pollitt of The Nation magazine: "The flag stands for vengeance, and jingoism, and war." Anthropology Professor Nicholas De Genova of Columbia University said he hoped for "a million Mogadishus." His colleagues objected, not to the despicable sentiment, but because of the bad publicity it brought their "teach-in." Our tax dollars at work!

Part II is the heart of the book: a history of the American and international Left. Horowitz calls them Neo-Communists or Neocoms. The Neocoms of old believed in the Soviet Union the way religious people believe in God. Those who spied for the USSR didn't see themselves as traitors to their country, but rather loyalists to humanity and an ideal of America that's never existed. When the Soviet Union fell, a few of them stopped for some introspection but most pressed on as if nothing happened. Communist historian Eric Hobsbawm put it nicely: "Without the Revolution, my life and my work are meaningless."

Now that they no longer have to defend an indefensible regime, modern Neocoms are simply nihilists. They know what they oppose but they have no plans for the aftermath of the revolution which they still believe will happen. They don't know what they want, but they know what they hate: the United States, capitalism personified.

So why are they allying with radical Islam? Horowitz says that the Neocoms still believe in Marx's dictum that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Once private property is abolished, the need for religion will vanish, and Islamic radicals will stop being Islamic and radical. The only thing standing in the way is the United States.

Sound insane? It is. They are. I highly recommend this book. Horowitz makes the insanity understandable.

[RaceBannon]

major bump

[newzjunkey]

Too little, too late. None but us will take any notice.

[newzjunkey]

"The Big Lie" has become "common knowledge" and thus anything to the contrary will be dismissed or ignored. The Left are BRILLIANT propogandists. We can't even make a splash with the truth on our side. It's pathetic!

[cookcounty]

This has been obvious to any ordinary trucker or plumber for over a year now. Glad to see a few journalists are finally re-discovering some portion of their lazy brains.