AP Reporter Obscures Truth about “The Sixteen Words”
Understandably, there’s a lot of fatigue in the center-right blogosphere over having to constantly defend “The Sixteen Words” from George W. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address (”The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”).
But when an AP reporter tries to cleverly rewrite history, it shouldn’t be left alone.
AP reporter Matt Apuzzo was way too clever in his article about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson adding Richard Armitage to their lawsuit. The second-last paragraph reads:
Wilson discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Such a claim wound up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.
Very cutely done. One might think that the “discounted” “claim” didn’t belong in Bush’s 2003 SOTU. It’s pretty clear to me that Matt Apuzzo WANTS us to think not only that it didn’t belong, but that it wasn’t, and isn’t true.
WRONG, Matt — Way back in April, Christopher Hitchens proved that “The Sixteen Words Were True.”
Enough already, Matt. Why don’t you track down Peter Fitzgerald and ask him if he still has any kind of case against Scooter Libby? If that’s not challenging enough, read Bob Novak’s column about how deceptive and squirrely Dick Armitage has been all this time, and ask yourself why anyone is still wasting their time on Val and Joe.
__________________________________
UPDATE, Sept. 14: Cassandra, at the newly-blogrolled Villainous Company, goes into much more necessary detail, because a misleading “Wilson Report” from last October still resides without revision at The Washington Post.
UPDATE, Sept. 16: Hitchens surveys the “16 words” proof in one convenient package at The Weekly Standard.
[…] I get sick of correcting stories about Lyin’ Joe Wilson. Thank goodness other bloggers don’t. Check out Cassandra and Tom Blumer on the latest stories papering over Lyin’ Joes lies. […]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Bloggers Keep the Media Honest About Lyin’ Joe — September 14, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
Somewhat connected is the fact that Fitzgerald has seemingly gone into hiding since the whole premise of this being a vengeful attack on Wilson went out the window with Armitage being identified. Hard to decide who looks the slimiest in this whole sorry saga.
Comment by LargeBill — September 14, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
#2, FitzWho?
Comment by TBlumer — September 14, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
That article by Hitchens proves nothing. There is no evidence in it all. An Iraqi official went to Niger and Hitchens speculates that it could only have been for the purpose of obtaining yellow cake. He does not mention that the uranium produced from Niger is not weapons grade, so what was Saddam supposed to do with it if he got it. Bush was told before he made his speach that it was based on a forged document and after the speach the CIA said those sixteen words should not have been included. It is obvious who the liar here is and it aint Joe Wilson.
Comment by Paul — September 15, 2006 @ 12:14 am
#4, Go here to an otherwise moonbatty entry and see this acknowledgment:
HERE
Making weapons-grade uranium from yellowcake sucks, and it takes a long time.
But this also means it can be done. Saddam was interested in trying to make weapons-grade uranium.
For the 16 words to be correct, either someone from Iraq had to go to Niger to seek it (Hitchens IDd someone who did just that — as he noted, what other possible reason could there have been?), or someone under orders from Saddam had to pick up the phone, call someone in Niger with authority, and say *we want to see if we can buy some yellowcake, please.* That is all.
The key word is SOUGHT (tried to get), not BOUGHT.
Joe Wilson IS the liar, and this three-year exercise has been a disgraceful scam that has come crashing down. It must hurt.
Comment by TBlumer — September 15, 2006 @ 8:36 am
Well, of course Mr. Wilson is a liar. How many people need to point out specific examples of his lies before you actually believe it, Paul? You *are* the tenacious type, aren’t you?
Comment by Eric — September 16, 2006 @ 5:10 pm