Yellow Journalism, Yellow Cake

The controversy over whether the now infamous line about Saddam trying to purchase uranium from Niger is nitpicking in the extreme. "The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said, en route to Uganda. If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said, 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," Rice said. George Tenet has taken responsibility for including it. That should be the end of it.

Democrats, who think they are making hay don’t realize that the American public believes there were plenty of good reasons for the war in Iraq. If this is their only quibble, one sentence in the State of the Union Address; they are truly grasping at straws. However, it does confirm one thing, that the Left is petty, mediocre and morally bankrupt. This is (non)pure politics; a game of gotcha and a fuss over process, not substance.

CNN, ever the fanner of flames, ran the following: “Rice's and Bush's statements come in the wake of comments from unnamed sources, who said the president's speech writers had included the discredited line in January's State of the Union address -- even after the CIA had raised concerns about the quality of the information.” Unnamed sources? Who are these unnamed sources and who is unwilling to name them, CNN? Will they turn out to be rest room attendants in the White House, or Wolf Blitzer himself?

I am also tired of the argument regarding the ‘utter sanctity’ of State of the Union Address; what utter nonsense. The Constitution does not require a State of the Union Address. The information is required, but it can be delivered to Congress on a brown paper bag, or in any form whatever, as far as the Constitution is concerned. These speeches are a very recent phenomena in US history. They afford presidents the opportunity to grandstand on national television, and are used by most presidents to boost their ratings in the polls. The State of the Union Address is no more ‘weighty’ than any other communication between the White House and Congress, perhaps less so because it panders to a national audience.

The Prime Minister of Niger, Hama Hamadou, confirmed that Iraq tried to buy uranium in the 1980s, but he said the offer had been rejected. The BBC's Souleymane Habouba in Niamey says, “ that Mr. Hamadou's denial surprised many in Niger, who believe their impoverished country would not have missed the chance to improve its finances through uranium sales”. "Iraq has never bought uranium from Niger, and the Niger Government has never discussed selling uranium to Iraq, Hamadou said; then President Seyni Kountche turned down Iraq's request.”

Kountchi was president of Niger from 1974–87. He was army chief of staff when he ousted Hamani Diori, Niger’s first president, in a military coup. He suspended the constitution, dissolved parliament, and suppressed all political activities. Clearly the sort of man who would take a moral stand on the sale of uranium.

Hamadou actually had the nerve to say further that Niger “cannot produce enriched uranium”. Three countries in Africa are officially listed by the World Nuclear Association as uranium producing countries: Niger, Namibia and South Africa. Niger, one of the world's poorest nations, is the third largest producer of uranium, along with Russia. Niger produces 2,900 tons of uranium per year, which it sells mainly to France, Japan and Spain. And the Democrats question President Bush’s veracity? Is it any wonder that British Intelligence believes the information about Niger to be true? If Niger refused the sale, perhaps the French did not. What if Nigerian uranium was diverted from France to Iraq? Could that be the reason France didn’t join the coalition against Saddam? Did they buy silence by not participating in the war?

Nor, should we forget that Saddam had a nuclear facility that was bombed by the Israelis, who know a threat when they see one. Does anyone believe that a then chastened Saddam promptly forgot about nuclear weapons? Just recently equipment for nuclear weapons was dug up from under rose bushes at a private residence. The owner was told to bury it and tell no one. Why do you think he was asked to preserve the equipment? Why was he told not to say anything? Perhaps, the Democrats will tell us it was part of some crazy Scavenger Hunt.

It doesn’t wash. If this is the best Democrats can do in mounting a challenge to the Bush presidency, this death by a thousand pinpricks, they don’t stand a chance in ‘84.

A few observations:

1) Do you remember just before we went to war, the media proclaimed that Bush had essentially said "Uncle" with respect to the nuclear claims, and that it was not basing its case on the claim that Saddam had resurrected its nuclear program? Too bad FoxNews or someone doesn't dig out those old NBC Nightly News clips and run them now.

2) The fact that these documents were forged does not prove that they did not originate with Saddam. On the contrary, the fact that they are forged makes them more suspicious. Saddam would definitely be willing to use forged documents to get his hands on uranium.

3) The fact that Niger denies that they sold uranium to Saddam also does not put the matter to rest. First, maybe the documents were intercepted before they got to Niger. Second, maybe the Niger officials would be reluctant to admit their involvement in such a grave matter, especially since a large part of their population is Muslim, because they have ties to France, and because Saddam has been one of their best customers. The fact that the Niger officials have demanded an apology from Bush seems to support that conclusion. Third, do Niger officials keep records of all forged documents that are presented to them? Bush never said that they supplied the uranium. He only stated that the Brits concluded that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa.

4) We do not know the full story about these documents. Who gave them to the Brits? How did the people who gave them to the Brits come across them? My guess is that the French, who essentially run the Niger uranium industry, gave these documents to the Brits, which would in itself be an attestation that someone had tried to use them to get uranium.

5) My view is that when and if we ever get the answers to these questions, if they support the President's statements, then certain members of Congress who have made irresponsible statements need to resign, and certain members of the media who have similarly made such statements need to walk the plank.


50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund is then due. The team is about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopps them and decrees that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds are made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable!
Free Republic
Your donations keep us fighting liberals

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.