On the Uranium Question

Woah, it's been awhile since I updated...That's not good...As I said when I started this blog, I don't want to just be talking about what I do all day; that's just boring. So, the challenge for me is to come up with interesting things to talk about here, and after a week, I think I have a few.

Now, on to today's topic...The issue of the President's african uranium statement from January's State of the Union address. Quite frankly, I think this is a non issue. That may sound like I'm simply brushing the issue off, but I don't think it was ever an issue to begin with...Did that make any sense?

Allow me to explain. First, as I recall, the Administration never used nuclear weapons as a reason to go into Iraq. Even before the war it was pretty clear that Iraq was not actively persuing nuclear weapons. That was just plain common knowledge. Recall that Colin Powell demonstrated simulated chemical weapons at the UN Security Council, not simultated nuclear material. What is being said now about the african uranium line implies that uranium was really an issue for Iraq. No, it was more like the little sprinkles on top of a large, multilayered cake.

Second, it's clear that the fact that the sixteen words that are in question got into the Address because several groups with the Executive branch screwed up. What's not clear is why they screwed up. Did they screw up because they honestly believed the bad intelligence? Did they screw up because they needed more evidence and were grasping at straws? My problem with this issue being raised in the way it has, as some sort of backhanded credibility issue, is that we have nothing that speaks to motive (I have in fact been watching too much Law and Order). It's pretty clear that those that are opposed to the President, i.e. the people who are raising this issue, are trying to imply that in making the incorrect statement about african uranium, the President lied...And that's just a bunch of BS (or just plain bull, heh). For the President to lie, the President would have to know that the statement he was about to speak was blatently untrue (as was clearly the case with Clinton). We have no evidence that is the case.

Third, the timing of how this issue is hitting the front pages bothers me. I distinctly remember hearing/seeing news reports that the documents used to support the President's statement on african uranium were not believable as far back as late April or early May. Now it's July and this is suddenly a Presidential issue. It just gives me the impression that someone opposed to the President sort of slipped this into the media...Is that how we want our news media to work?