WAPo repeats bogus claim about bogus letter on Niger deal
Peter Eisner writing for the Washington Post discusses some Italian reporters reaction to the famous 16 words in the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and makes the bogus assertion that "the uranium claim would become a crucial justification for the invasion of Iraq that began less than two months later."
That statement is false on its face in two regards. The Congress had already approved the action against Iraq months before the President gave the speech, but more importantly the speech was not based on the bogus documents but on British intelligence that was later confirmed by Joe Wilson.
Wilson's own claims denying the attempt to purchase uranium have also been discredited. Why Eisner and the Post would want to rehash this bogus analysis of the President's speech at this time can only be attributed to political bias and attempts to undermine the war effort in much the same way Wilson did with his original dishonest attack on the speech.
The story is based on a fraudulent premise. The British intelligence was not tied to the bogus letters in Italy and in fact predated those letters. In fact the only time British intelligence is mentioned in the story is in the quote from the President's speech. He never demonstrates a tie between the bogus documents and the Brits. In fact the bogus documents go directly to the CIA from Italian intelligence. He and Wilson might have a case if the President had said "Italian intelligence has learned...."
This is a story that makes no sense other than another fraudulent attack on prewar intelligence.
That statement is false on its face in two regards. The Congress had already approved the action against Iraq months before the President gave the speech, but more importantly the speech was not based on the bogus documents but on British intelligence that was later confirmed by Joe Wilson.
Wilson's own claims denying the attempt to purchase uranium have also been discredited. Why Eisner and the Post would want to rehash this bogus analysis of the President's speech at this time can only be attributed to political bias and attempts to undermine the war effort in much the same way Wilson did with his original dishonest attack on the speech.
The story is based on a fraudulent premise. The British intelligence was not tied to the bogus letters in Italy and in fact predated those letters. In fact the only time British intelligence is mentioned in the story is in the quote from the President's speech. He never demonstrates a tie between the bogus documents and the Brits. In fact the bogus documents go directly to the CIA from Italian intelligence. He and Wilson might have a case if the President had said "Italian intelligence has learned...."
This is a story that makes no sense other than another fraudulent attack on prewar intelligence.
Comments
Post a Comment