The Annotated Matt Wright Reader
Belated disclaimer: First off, the column is now here. Second, these articles are listed here for further reading by anyone interested in all this mess. I didn't intend for everyone to read every article to begin some informed discussion of all the minutiae of the topic. I just thought it'd be handy to have everything in one place.
In the process of writing my latest column I came across more information on my topic—intelligence scandals, dead informants, adminstration officials breaking the law to ruin someone's career, you know, the norm . . . as Brendon would say, "Is it Tuesday already?"—than I could ever properly address in my 30 score words. So for those of you bored at work, here's a list of all the useful articles I came across related to Niger uranium and all its fallout.
Also, thanks to Kevin Drum, whose weblog is an incessantly replenished goldmine of news, for providing me with a springboard to tracking down all these sources.
1. First off, I bring the funny with this entertaining article about Mary Kay conventioners at a Bush fundraiser. Included for its quality quote about why Bush is trusted by the religious right.
2. Howard Dean's 16 questions for President Bush. Almost all are related to false information or false claims from the administration, and all include sources. Very handy.
3. Another debunked claim, this one about Saddam's biological/chemical-weapon capabilities. Before the war the British government claimed Saddam could launch such an attack within 45 minutes of giving the order. To say that Saddam has the germs in the incubator and is actively seeking uranium for the Bomb makes a preemptive strike seem like not such a bad idea. Remember how much of the left wanted Saddam gone but didn't want to go to war alone without fully testing every containment possibility. I think the implication that Saddam posed an immediate threat could have provoked those in the ideological middle ground to stay quiet and go with the flow. It's also convenient that the administration could cite the British government for any dubious claims—that whole "factually correct" bit.
4. David Kelly's strange, sad story. The BBC first revealed that the 45-minute claim was incorrect, basing their report on a government scientist's information. He committed suicide last week, and the British government and the BBC have been pointing the finger at each other over whose fault it was.
5. The Nation's take on how the administration may have retaliated against the source who openly refuted its Niger uranium claim. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria in 2002 at the CIA's request and said it was "highly doubtful" that Saddam had purchased uranium. In response, two administration officials leaked that his wife is an undercover CIA agent. Wilson will not confirm or deny this claim, but if true, the officials not only ruined her career, they broke the law. G.p calls this treason. Very disturbing stuff, although I think The Nation rushes to a few bleeding-heart conclusions with which I don't agree.
6. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist who first exposed Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. The information was also subsequently leaked to Time. Information was ostensibly included in this column to show why Wilson was the chosen investigator in Niger.
7. This U.S. News report says administration officials hashed out the case for war several days before Bush's SotU address. Their arguments were compiled into a report, which was then passed on to Gen. Colin Powell. He was to use this as he prepared to speak before the U.N. less than a week after the SotU. The Niger uranium claim was not included in this document, supposedly because it had be so refuted they didn't want to bring it up.
8. An Italian journalist who claims she is the original source of Niger uranium suspicions. She investigated the claim, thought it was false, and chose not to run the story for fear of damaging her credibility.
9. From the NYTimes, a summary of the whole Niger uranium thing, in case anyone was not up to date and an editorial by Paul Krugman on the whole mess.
It's impossible to come to definite conclusions based on these articles, but, as I argue in my column, it at least indicates why we need an investigation. Taken individually, I think each example above is small enough or circumstantial enough that the right could shrug it off as vote-getting sensationalism. But as a whole, this is not revisionist history and this is not vote grabbing by doomed Democratic candidates. I want to know what's going on, and I think my Republican family should, too.
Here's something that just occurred to me. The Republican party advocates less government because government can't be trusted with efficiently implementing our social institutions. Why are these government skeptics now so willing to trust Bush?
Belated disclaimer: First off, the column is now here. Second, these articles are listed here for further reading by anyone interested in all this mess. I didn't intend for everyone to read every article to begin some informed discussion of all the minutiae of the topic. I just thought it'd be handy to have everything in one place.
In the process of writing my latest column I came across more information on my topic—intelligence scandals, dead informants, adminstration officials breaking the law to ruin someone's career, you know, the norm . . . as Brendon would say, "Is it Tuesday already?"—than I could ever properly address in my 30 score words. So for those of you bored at work, here's a list of all the useful articles I came across related to Niger uranium and all its fallout.
Also, thanks to Kevin Drum, whose weblog is an incessantly replenished goldmine of news, for providing me with a springboard to tracking down all these sources.
1. First off, I bring the funny with this entertaining article about Mary Kay conventioners at a Bush fundraiser. Included for its quality quote about why Bush is trusted by the religious right.
2. Howard Dean's 16 questions for President Bush. Almost all are related to false information or false claims from the administration, and all include sources. Very handy.
3. Another debunked claim, this one about Saddam's biological/chemical-weapon capabilities. Before the war the British government claimed Saddam could launch such an attack within 45 minutes of giving the order. To say that Saddam has the germs in the incubator and is actively seeking uranium for the Bomb makes a preemptive strike seem like not such a bad idea. Remember how much of the left wanted Saddam gone but didn't want to go to war alone without fully testing every containment possibility. I think the implication that Saddam posed an immediate threat could have provoked those in the ideological middle ground to stay quiet and go with the flow. It's also convenient that the administration could cite the British government for any dubious claims—that whole "factually correct" bit.
4. David Kelly's strange, sad story. The BBC first revealed that the 45-minute claim was incorrect, basing their report on a government scientist's information. He committed suicide last week, and the British government and the BBC have been pointing the finger at each other over whose fault it was.
5. The Nation's take on how the administration may have retaliated against the source who openly refuted its Niger uranium claim. Ambassador Joseph Wilson went to Nigeria in 2002 at the CIA's request and said it was "highly doubtful" that Saddam had purchased uranium. In response, two administration officials leaked that his wife is an undercover CIA agent. Wilson will not confirm or deny this claim, but if true, the officials not only ruined her career, they broke the law. G.p calls this treason. Very disturbing stuff, although I think The Nation rushes to a few bleeding-heart conclusions with which I don't agree.
6. Robert Novak, the conservative columnist who first exposed Wilson's wife as a CIA agent. The information was also subsequently leaked to Time. Information was ostensibly included in this column to show why Wilson was the chosen investigator in Niger.
7. This U.S. News report says administration officials hashed out the case for war several days before Bush's SotU address. Their arguments were compiled into a report, which was then passed on to Gen. Colin Powell. He was to use this as he prepared to speak before the U.N. less than a week after the SotU. The Niger uranium claim was not included in this document, supposedly because it had be so refuted they didn't want to bring it up.
8. An Italian journalist who claims she is the original source of Niger uranium suspicions. She investigated the claim, thought it was false, and chose not to run the story for fear of damaging her credibility.
9. From the NYTimes, a summary of the whole Niger uranium thing, in case anyone was not up to date and an editorial by Paul Krugman on the whole mess.
It's impossible to come to definite conclusions based on these articles, but, as I argue in my column, it at least indicates why we need an investigation. Taken individually, I think each example above is small enough or circumstantial enough that the right could shrug it off as vote-getting sensationalism. But as a whole, this is not revisionist history and this is not vote grabbing by doomed Democratic candidates. I want to know what's going on, and I think my Republican family should, too.
Here's something that just occurred to me. The Republican party advocates less government because government can't be trusted with efficiently implementing our social institutions. Why are these government skeptics now so willing to trust Bush?
posted by Matt at 5:53 PM
|
<< Home