State of the Union and missing Uranium 

State of the Union and missing Uranium

Okay folks, let's all take a deep breath, take a step back, and review what we think we know about Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address and Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa. We know that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Africa early last year to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson reported back to the CIA that such a purchase would be highly doubtful, that uranium from Niger was strictly controlled. We also know that the documents that turned up later in the year that purportedly showed Iraq attempting to purchase Nigerian uranium were, all together now, "crude forgeries." And we know that all of this was known to the United States' intelligence community and should have been known by the White House before the State of the Union Address. So we know that when Bush said that British Intelligence had learned of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from an African nation that he knew that this was not true; that Bush was lying. We know that, right? Well, let's not bet the rent money on that just yet.

Maybe it would be a good idea to do what nobody in our press seems to have thought of doing. Maybe we ought to see just what it is that British Intelligence learned. Speaking to Parliament on September 24, 2002, Tony Blair said, "We know Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, though we do not know whether he has been successful." The following day, the Times of London and the Guardian both indicated that Mr. Blair's reference was to Iraqi attempts to procure uranium in the Congo. Now, it may be that nobody in the Bush White House knows that Niger and the Congo are two entirely separate African nations (Condoleeza Rice doesn't seem to know who Stephen Hadley is). But it seems that in this case, painful as it is for me to admit it, Mr. Bush actually may have been "technically correct" in the State of the Union address.

Bush has told enough whoppers that have real meat on them that the press, and those of us who would like nothing better than to see old George hanging from a sour apple tree (figuratively speaking, only, of course), might do well to back off this particular item and focus on some of the others. How about them aluminum tubes? Maybe the White House's blowing the cover of Ambassador Wilson's wife? Launching a war based on five year old data on Iraq's chemical weapons program? The hits just keep on coming. Let's leave this one alone now, okay?