Washington Post Gets It Right

Untitled document

In an unsigned editorial in today's Washington Post, the latest storm and fury about the President "leaking" material is addressed pretty well. Although calling the handling of the leak clumsy, they also note that it was done for good reasons. All the revisionist, 20/20 hindsight aside, it was the strongest evidence the administration had at the time. They also point out that much of what Bush's fiercest critics believe is simply wrong. Joseph Wilson is a liar, and they call him on it.

The affair concerns, once again, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his absurdly over-examined visit to the African country of Niger in 2002. Each time the case surfaces, opponents of the war in Iraq use it to raise a different set of charges, so it's worth recalling the previous iterations. Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium. (Emphasis added)

WaPo's conclusion:

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus. It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

This is, I think, enough for reasonable people to let this matter go. Though I rather doubt a lot of people will.

UPDATE: Captain Ed has some interesting information up about this as well.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has an astonishingly complete roundup of Joe Wilson's lies. There's a lot of links there, folks. 

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens, obviously no fan of the Bush administration (since he's, like, suing it) has put out an article that demolishes the "Bush Lied" meme about Niger and Iraq's attempt to buy uranium. Joe Wilson looks worse and worse. I would suspect that the left would be better served to kick Wilson and his bull to the curb than to keep trying to ride this horse. I have to say, I admire a man so principled that he will defend someone he is taking legal action against when the other party is being wrongfully accused. Kudos. Mr. Hitchens.

This entry was posted in Media, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Washington Post Gets It Right

  1. Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Bush’s Duty

  2. Gauis Arbo says:

    It’s fairly obvious from the comments in the approval holding area that there are a lot of people conflating a number of different topics here.

    It’s also apparent that there are a lot of people who think longer is better (hint, people probably aren’t interested in a comment that is five or six times longer than the original post) and that this comment section is a place to go bounding off wildly on tangents.

    Accordingly, and to avoid charges that I suppressed dissent selectively, I am wiping everything out of the holding area (including the people who simply can’t seem to make a comment without including obscenities). That includes people who wanted to argue about this post and people who wanted to agree with it.

    We’ll try this again. Keep it short, keep it clean and keep it on topic. I’ll let comments on that meet those criteria and will nuke any, pro or con, that don’t. Simple enough?

    If you

  3. Pingback: The Real Ugly American.com

  4. Gary Denton says:

    Worst editorial in a long time, they don’t even read their own paper. They leaked stuff they knew was wrong and kept classified the stuff that showed the leak was wrong. The WP has never been liberal, especially their editorial pages.

  5. Pingback: Blue Crab Boulevard » Blog Archive » Something Fishy About This

  6. Pingback: Dadmanly

  7. Ah, the moonbats are coming out of the woodwork in your comment section too?

  8. Gauis Arbo says:

    This post drew serious problems – I had to purge some really obscene stuff, Mike. My little girl does read this from time to time. There was stuff in the queue that I wouldn’t say on my worst day. So every damned comment got nuked, even the friendly ones. I couldn’t figure out a quick way to sort them, didn’t feel like wasting a lot of time doing it one by one so I hit the flush key.

    Word to the really nasty folks out there – would you say the things you write on comment sections in front of a child? Children can read ANY blog, folks. Please, you can disagree, but keep it civil. Otherwise, you have no class and your comments mean less than zero.

  9. Jim O'Hara says:

    Of course, it all makes sense now. The administration, confident that it had information that would prove their case, secretly declassified documents and leaked them to the press via Scooter. Oh, and yeah maybe an undercover CIA agent gets outed in the process with no warning to that agent, compromising years of intelligence gathering? Ever wonder what Plame was working on?

    I can’t believe you buy this hook line and sinker. A rational person would see it just doesn’t add up, but you seem desperate to validate the huge mistake of invading Iraq. We’re up to, what, three generals so far that have called for Rumsfeld to resign? By the way it’s good to know you consider Hitchens a reliable source.

    One must wonder that given all the other evidence that Saddam had no nuclear program why he would go after yellow cake. Maybe he just wanted to make us think he had a program. But be honest with us Gias, you know the whole nuclear capable Iraq was a just a scare tactic to build enough support to invade a country half way across the world from the US. North Korea was more of a threat at the time, and given how many US citizens are stationed in South Korea, it was much more serious threat. But we don’t care about that; 30,000+ citizens in South Korea is no worry.

    Now look at the mess the US invasion of Iraq has created, and what is happening in Iran. At the time 9/11 occurred, Iran was headed by a moderate, reformist President who harshly denounced 9/11 and offered the US the use of air bases in Iran to track down alqaeda in Afghanistan. But then Bush goes and calls Iran an axis of evil and invades a neighboring country. Wonder how the Iranian people felt about that? In 2005 the people of Iraq voted in the only Presidential candidate that openly stated his distrust and disrespect for America. Naturally he was elected, and now we have a fundamentalist Iranian President bound and determined to stand up to what he percieves as American/Western imperalism. Nice work!

    My question to you Gias- Which would you rather have – Saddam with some yellow cake and no way to enrich it, or the situation that is developing in Iraq and Iran?

    Jim

  10. Gauis Arbo says:

    Which would rather have? Saddam still in power to rape and murder civilians? Frankly, your arguments over uranium are weak and you know it – it was 16 words in an address, not the focus. You also appear to be somewhat misguided on what justifies going to war. The US had every right to go to war the minute Saddam broke the cease-fire. Period. Truce violation has ALWAYS been an accepted casus belli.

    Read some of my other posts and I address most of your issues.

  11. Jim O'Hara says:

    Saddam raped citizens. Of course, being a dictator has its perks. Men or women? I’d guess men, because Saddam allowed women to own businesses, get married and divorced in civil court. Are we seeing the same equal freedoms for men and women in the new sectarian Iraq?

    And I guess the death squads roaming the streets of Baghdad looking for those that “aren’t the right kind of people” are a major improvement over a power hungry dictator. Saddam loved Iraqi citizens that were loyal to him and killed those who he feared or opposed him. Typical dictator behavior, and easy to live with once you understand the terms and conditions. Now Iraqis are being blown up as they pray, or when are at the market trying to buy food. That’s an improvement.

    /irony
    At least the democratically elected government isn’t involved in torture like the Saddam regime. There are no torture chambers in the basement of Interior Ministry buildings. Gone are the mass graves of a dozen bodies found tortured and brutally murdered. Driving around Baghdad is safe. Kidnappings are at an all time low.
    /ironyoff

    By the way, it’s estimated 300,000+ people have been killed in Darfur, and hundreds continue to die each week. Please don’t pull the “we’re saving the Iraqis from the Brual dictator” line… we armed Saddam when it suited us (late 80’s Rumsfeld handshake video), and he was equally evil then.

    As for Saddam breaking treaties, express your indignation to an American Indian. I’m sure you’ll get plenty of sympathy.

    Jim

  12. Gauis Arbo says:

    Ah, so he should have been left in power. Is that your point?

Comments are closed.