Follow The Bouncing, Non-existent Uranium
Frank Rich gets to the point in the IHT:
This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit is not Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11. That's why the stakes are so high: This scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a CIA operative who posed for Vanity Fair.
So put aside Wilson's February 2002 trip to Africa. The plot that matters starts a month later, in March, and its omniscient author is Dick Cheney. It was Cheney (on CNN) who planted the idea that Saddam was "actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." The vice president went on to repeat this charge in May on "Meet the Press," in three speeches in August and on "Meet the Press" yet again in September. Along the way the frightening word "uranium" was thrown into the mix.
By September the president was bandying about the u-word too at the United Nations and elsewhere, speaking of how Saddam needed only a softball-size helping of uranium to wreak Armageddon on America. But hardly had Bush done so when, offstage, out of view of us civilian spectators, the whole premise of this propaganda campaign was being challenged by forces with more official weight than Joseph Wilson.
In October, the National Intelligence Estimate, distributed to Congress as it deliberated authorizing war, included the State Department's caveat that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa," made public in a British dossier, were "highly dubious." A CIA assessment, sent to the White House that month, determined that "the evidence is weak" and "the Africa story is overblown."
As if this weren't enough, a State Department intelligence analyst questioned the legitimacy of some mysterious documents that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said as much publicly in the days just before "shock and awe," his announcement made none of the three network evening newscasts. The administration's apocalyptic uranium rhetoric, sprinkled with mushroom clouds, had been hammered incessantly for more than five months by then - not merely in the State of the Union address - and could not be dislodged. As scenarios go, this one was about as subtle as "Independence Day" and just as unstoppable a crowd-pleaser.
Once we were locked into the war, and no WMDs could be found, the original plot line was dropped with an alacrity. The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost "in the bowels" of the bureaucracy or that it was all the CIA's fault or that it didn't matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That's why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.
Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration's drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he'd never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single op-ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora's box it can't slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's essential to protect the king.







Amy, that's FROGWASH.
Your continuing fascination with WMDs, particularly in the NYT mindset, no matter how often refuted, is inexplicable. I cannot understand lefty close-mindedness about this. If I didn't have to go to work I'd rebut every word. Or at least link to every comment on your blog that's ALREADY answered the point.
Grr
Crid at July 21, 2005 7:02 AM
Christ, it's like an achey tooth, I can't stop:
> Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know
> that there's only one certainty ahead: the
> timing of a Karl Rove resignation.
Opuh! Opuh-LEEEZE.....
Amy, this is lefty MASTURBATION. It's beneath a serious student of politics, or merely of human nature. Or just a person who actually reads newspapers.
Crid at July 21, 2005 7:10 AM
First we get a mention of Scheer...now Rich. Two of the more egregious examples of non - rational thought in political "commentary" today.
These guys have been outed so many times for their fabulist tendencies that it's no wonder that Maureen Dowd actually looks harmless by comparison these days.
I'm waiting for the inevitable paen to Robert Fisk to appear shortly. Yikes...
Dmac at July 21, 2005 8:03 AM
Leave a comment