Strib Still Loves Wilson
From reading the Strib this morning, you'd never know that Joe "Sweet Tea" Wilson had been caught lying about the results of his "investigation".
Nary a mention of his perfidy in this morning's editorial; just more Democrat talking points dressed up as an editorial.
They roll out the big guns bright and early:
From loud -- and erroneous -- claims that a link finally had been established between Niger and Iraq, you'd think the entire case for invading Iraq had finally been validated. That's hogwash.
"Hogwash". Wow. They're taking this seriously.
Everyone recalls the issue: Prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration claimed -- most famously in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech -- that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Later, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times saying Bush was wrong and that the CIA knew it. The basis for Wilson's claim: He had traveled to Niger at the CIA's behest to investigate the claims and found them baseless.
Right. But the Strib doesn't tell you that
that's not what Wilson really said when he came back from Niger.
The Strib thinks you're a moron, by the way:
Meanwhile, rather than focusing on the larger intelligence failure, Americans have been led by Republican spin artists to ponder the mind-numbing bureaucratic intricacies of the supposed Iraq-Niger link. Finding that such a link existed requires circular logic, and that is abundantly in evidence, particularly in the Butler report. Bush's defenders have seized on a passage in it which said, "We conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' were well-founded."
Too complicated for you to follow? The Strib thinks so.
The long and short of it: the Strib is carrying the water for the anti-Bush left:
The whole Niger discussion is being used to obscure a larger truth: that the entire central case for going to war -- the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- has proven baseless. Saddam had no program for building nuclear weapons, though he perhaps wanted his internal and external enemies to believe he did.
This editorial is further proof of Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary:
No liberal commentator can simultaneously address all four of the justifications for the war in Iraq; to do so would invalidate their case". WMDs were one plank of the case, along with Iraq's longstanding defiance of UN resolutions (undeniable), their human rights record (nobody with more moral character than Michael Moore denies it), their links with terror (not just Al Quada, although those links are there, not to mention possible links to the Oklahoma City and '93 WTC bombings) and the WMDs, which they did have (not that the Strib wants you to know about Halabja).
So, Strib editors - when are you going to stop lying and selling whatever journalistic soul you claim you have to get Bush out of office?
By the way - I cancelled my subscription 18 months ago. Don't bother calling.
Posted by Mitch at
July 21, 2004 07:29 AM
| TrackBack
See? All that talk about how the Strib is "only" a midwestern clone of the Post or Times? Heck no, the Strib('s editorial page) is much less honest and far more biased.
I believe it now *owns* that huge unaddressed market segment that runs left of the Post & Times to the People's Weekly World. That should help profits...
... are profits OK?
Posted by: jdm at July 21, 2004 08:25 AMI was a bit surprised at this editorial this morning because it ignores documented fact. The Strib editors also continued to alter Bush's quotes to reflect what they wish he had said. They say that he claimed in his speech that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger -- instead of reproducing his original quote -- "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,"
Posted by: Michael at July 21, 2004 09:56 AMI'm pretty sure this has already been said in a similar place on your blog, but....
These idiots will continue to believe that bad people won't seek to develop/use WMD right up until something goes off in our back yard. At which time they will all scream "why weren't we warned?" "Why didn't you protect us?"
Posted by: fingers at July 21, 2004 10:05 AMThanks for the reality check, Mitch.
Posted by: pinkmonkeybird at July 21, 2004 11:08 AMWhen I'd read that editorial earlier this morning, I'd feared that I was now living in an episode of The Twilight Zone. Started hearing that zing-zangy guitar riff. I'm trying to remember which episode it was...I think it was the one where the guy falls asleep and when he wakes up everything is different.
Oh, that's right...they were all like that.
Hey, you're squawkin' like a pink monkey bird! Good one, man.
In Wilson's defense, I've been drinking a good bit of mint tea lately and it has affected my judgment, eyesite, and moral compass. So cut the man a little slack.
It is quite tasty, though.
Posted by: Brian Jones at July 21, 2004 11:17 AMI just want to do a to see if I can stop the italics. Haha, rather silly of me...
Posted by: Shawn Sarazin at July 21, 2004 11:28 AMAnd now they are complaining that we should be focusing on Iran. Since Iraq and Al-Queda did not "collaborate" on the 9/11 attacks they feel free to ad lib and say there were no connections at all. Al-Queda base camps in Northern Iraq, Zarqawi in Baghdad setting up cells pre-invasion, other agents passing through, none of it enough to "justify" our attacks. But, sure enough, now that the same type of details are emerging with Iran, why by golly, we should have invaded ASAP. Right.
Posted by: Dave V at July 21, 2004 12:05 PMits as if the editorial board doesn't review recent news events before writing their editorials.. they shaped it completely to their biased view and made it sound as if Joe Wilson is being persecuted for crying out loud.. the man is a flat out bald faced liar!
Posted by: pete at July 21, 2004 01:01 PM