web counter Media Lies: Is Wilson's ship sinking fast?

Monday, July 19, 2004

PLEASE NOTE: Media Lies has moved.
The new address is http://www.antimedia.us/.
Please adjust your bookmarks.

Is Wilson's ship sinking fast?

It would appear so. Despite the failure of major US media to highlight this story, it just won't go away. Michael Barone addressed it today in an article entitled The "Bush lied" folks can't be taken seriously. (Hat tip to Instapundit.) Wilson apparently thinks it's a big enough problem that he has to defend himself. He's already written a letter to the SIC disputing the facts, and he's going on PBS' NewsHour tonight to defend himself. (Good luck.)

I've cataloged the reasons why Wilson is not to be believed link, but the chorus of boos has been rising steadily. It first appeared in the Washington Post and was quickly followed up in the blogosphere. William Safire published an op-ed today, ironically titled Sixteen Truthful Words, in which he exposes Wilson's prevarications. He also quotes the British Butler report. Here's the money quote from the Butler report:
". . . 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' was well-founded."
One wonders if the mainstream press will ever admit they got it wrong. They were suckered by Wilson because they wanted to believe his story. He was a liberal hero, finally giving them something that would "stick" to Bush and debuting the "Bush lied" storyline. Now that it's falling apart before their very eyes, they can't bear to look - or report the news. (Can you imagine Brokaw leading with "It now appears we were hoodwinked by Wilson"? Yeah, sure, not in my lifetime.)

But, like water on a rock, the truth will eventually wear away the lies. Here's some evidence that the dam is breaking:
Bush's State of the Union speech redeemed - Mark Steyn - Chicago Sun-Times
Our Man in Niger - Clifford May - National Review
Wilson's contradictions leave Democrat Senators speechless - Robert Novak - Chicago Sun-Times
British report undermines Wilson on prewar data - Robert Sammons - Washington Times
My Fisking Of Joseph Wilson's Letter Regarding the Senate Intelligence Report, Niger and Uranium - FreeRepublic.com

I won't list the blog mentions - too many to count - that soundly prove that Wilson has lied (including my own analysis of the SICR.) Wilson's squirming notwithstanding, the Butler report should put an end to this silliness once and for all. Only an idiot could say that Iraq was not a threat, that there were no compelling reasons to go to war.

Speaking of which, has anyone beside me noticed that Hillary Clinton has been remarkably silent about all the anti-war and Bush lied stuff? As strident as Hillary is with regard to politics, one has to think that she must have very good reasons for not joining the chorus. Perhaps those years in the White House sobered her enough (about the terrorist threat) that she's not willing to criticize the President as stridently as many, including Kerry, are?

According to a story on NewsMax, Hillary and other top Democrats would still have voted for the war, even after the publication of the SICR. (Where does that put Kerry-Edwards?) I think Hillary has seen enough to know that the threat is real and being on the wrong side of the argument would be political suicide if another attack succeeds. Newsmax claims that Ted Koppel contacted 42 Senators and only found three that claim they would have changed their vote to authorize the war based upon what they now know about the reliability of the intelligence.

It's interesting too to note the tension between the SICR and the 9/11 commission. On the one hand, the SICR says intelligence was "overemphasizing" the threat. On the other hand, the 9/11 commission castigates the intelligence community for not "connecting the dots". The Senate has yet to admit its role in this whole affair. After all, they see the reports. They authorize the appropriations. They oversee the agencies. If there was a "massive failure" as they claim, don't they share at least a part of the blame? Perhaps Hillary, who for all her stridency is politically aware, knows better than to cast stones?

UPDATE: Tom Maquire has a lot more to say about Wilson's prevarications. See his main website - http://justoneminute.typepad.com/ as well. He's got quite a bit on the story.