uggabugga





Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Is the Washington Post lying in your face?

Here's what they write in their editorial about the Libby verdict:
In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.

A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false ...
How about that "conversations with journalists" bit? Allows for all sorts of unverified charges. So let's stick to the record instead. The Post says:
  • [Wilson] suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter.
  • [Wilson] alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
What did Wilson actuallly write? On the "Cheney dispatched" front, Wilson wrote: (emp add)
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. [...] The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
No Cheney. Cheney's office. (If you're hurling charges, make sure they are accurate.) Not Cheney dispatching Wilson. The agency dispatching Wilson.

On the "alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration" front, Wilson wrote: (emp add)
In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
As to the broad contours of the whole affair, that the Bush administration invented or exaggerated the "threat" posed by Iraq, the Washington Post doesn't give a damn.



2 comments

The WA Post Editorial staff is obviously covering its derriere, and perhaps those of its right wing columnists Hoagland, Novak, et al, who have supported George W's Cheney Administration from the git-go.

By Blogger Shag from Brookline, at 3/07/2007 4:43 AM  

Onetime I saw that wanker from Powerline go on tv and explain that cheney had rebutted wilson.
In fact cheney had falsley claimed that wilson had lied.
And all this could be ascertained just by reading the one page Wilson op ed.
And the press corp was too g-d damned lazy to do so.

notice the decepticon MO here:
take a bullet summary
then claim the bullet point doesnt accurately describe something.
ergo the person is lying.
And they never even commented on the rest of what wilson wrote: that three different people were doing similar missions, that the IAEA monitored the mine closely, that the international owner would be unlikely to cooperate.
and of course there was the claim of chronyism coming from the right was amusing...

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/07/2007 10:34 PM  

Post a Comment