It is sad when journalists can't read...
Below is a letter to the editor I just sent off to the Washington Post (and to ever editor's e-mail I could get my hands on...). It's not intended to be published (way too long and I don't have time to be concise today), but it is because this column contains the same old Democratic arguments about Ambassador Wilson's supposed report debunking the Niger-Iraq connection (albeit, he recognizes Rove didn't break the law, but instead focuses on Cheney). My intent in sending the letter was more to point out his incompetence to his colleagues rather than make a public point. This site is my public point. ;) Well, here's the letter:
To the editor,
Having read Richard Cohen's recent column "Rove Isn't the RealOutrage," I was astonished to see such a poorly researched piece could ever make it into the Washington Post. It is an embarassment to your paper and, while merely an opinion piece, substantially lowered my regard for your paper. It seems the days of Woodward's investigative reporting are clearly gone. Mr. Cohen seems incompetent of even reading a simple, albeit long, Congressional report!
As Cohen wrote, "It was Plame ... who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had tried to buy uraniumin Niger. He went and later said that he found nothing, but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable word uttered by Vice President Cheney, 'reconstituted' its nuclear weapons program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter...The inspired exaggeration of the case againstIraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison...Wilson was both armed and dangerous. He claimed the truth."" Clearly, Cohen did not read or take into account the U.S. Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" before writing his piece, even though that is the authoritative report of theCongressional investigation into Iraqi WMD estimates before the war. (available here)
As the report notes about Wilson's trip to Niger and his subsequent statements to Congress and the press, "The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA DidNot Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June12,2003) which said, 'among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.'"
The report continues to cite repeated inconsistencies in Ambassador Wilson's Congressional testimony and other statements. As it notes, for instance, "First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraqand, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Nigercould have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report ... noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Nigeruranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki... DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales."
Rather than debunk the reports of Iraq-Niger uranium sales, then, Wilson's reporting only confirmed to DIA and CIA analysts that, according to the former Nigerian PM, an Iraqi delegation had likely visited Niger to discuss those sales. And even so, "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA’s briefer did not brief theVice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previousquestions about the issue." Rather than serve as additional evidence of the Vice President's statements as Cohen claims, then, the report confirms that Wilson's report was never briefed to the Vice President or used for further analysis for the Administration at all.
What the Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" demonstrates, if anything, is that Ambassador Wilson either is armed with a terribly poor memory or a politically-motivated streak of dishonesty. Hardly, however, "the truth" as Cohen claims.
Neither is Cohen, and he does a disservice to your paper and its readers with his recent column. I prefer to think that Cohen was either too lazy to actually read the Senate's report or did not know it existed. Then the inaccuracies in his column would be gross negligence above all else. I suspect, however, that he did read the report and chose to ignore it, casting aside the most comprehensivegovernment report on the issue to suit his ownpolitically-motivated goals. How ironic that, in accusing Vice President Cheney of ignoring government reports, exaggerating his claims, and lying to make political gains, Richard Cohen would be guilty of all three.
To the editor,
Having read Richard Cohen's recent column "Rove Isn't the RealOutrage," I was astonished to see such a poorly researched piece could ever make it into the Washington Post. It is an embarassment to your paper and, while merely an opinion piece, substantially lowered my regard for your paper. It seems the days of Woodward's investigative reporting are clearly gone. Mr. Cohen seems incompetent of even reading a simple, albeit long, Congressional report!
As Cohen wrote, "It was Plame ... who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had tried to buy uraniumin Niger. He went and later said that he found nothing, but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable word uttered by Vice President Cheney, 'reconstituted' its nuclear weapons program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter...The inspired exaggeration of the case againstIraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison...Wilson was both armed and dangerous. He claimed the truth."" Clearly, Cohen did not read or take into account the U.S. Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" before writing his piece, even though that is the authoritative report of theCongressional investigation into Iraqi WMD estimates before the war. (available here)
As the report notes about Wilson's trip to Niger and his subsequent statements to Congress and the press, "The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA DidNot Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June12,2003) which said, 'among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.'"
The report continues to cite repeated inconsistencies in Ambassador Wilson's Congressional testimony and other statements. As it notes, for instance, "First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraqand, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Nigercould have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report ... noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Nigeruranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki... DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales."
Rather than debunk the reports of Iraq-Niger uranium sales, then, Wilson's reporting only confirmed to DIA and CIA analysts that, according to the former Nigerian PM, an Iraqi delegation had likely visited Niger to discuss those sales. And even so, "Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA’s briefer did not brief theVice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previousquestions about the issue." Rather than serve as additional evidence of the Vice President's statements as Cohen claims, then, the report confirms that Wilson's report was never briefed to the Vice President or used for further analysis for the Administration at all.
What the Senate's bipartisan "Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq" demonstrates, if anything, is that Ambassador Wilson either is armed with a terribly poor memory or a politically-motivated streak of dishonesty. Hardly, however, "the truth" as Cohen claims.
Neither is Cohen, and he does a disservice to your paper and its readers with his recent column. I prefer to think that Cohen was either too lazy to actually read the Senate's report or did not know it existed. Then the inaccuracies in his column would be gross negligence above all else. I suspect, however, that he did read the report and chose to ignore it, casting aside the most comprehensivegovernment report on the issue to suit his ownpolitically-motivated goals. How ironic that, in accusing Vice President Cheney of ignoring government reports, exaggerating his claims, and lying to make political gains, Richard Cohen would be guilty of all three.
posted by Dennis at
8:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home