Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review July 18, 2003 / 18 Tamuz, 5763

Diana West

Diana West
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Whose credibility gap? | So awfully nice to know, as the media and certain Democratic presidential candidates would have us believe, that Saddam Hussein never, ever tried to buy uranium in Africa. The claim to the contrary — specifically, that the British government learned the now-deposed Iraqi dictator sought uranium in Africa — first came to public attention during the last State of the Union address. It was one point among many bolstering the president's case to use force to disarm the maniacal dictator, who, if memory serves me, was still using a decade's worth of United Nations disarmament orders to line his favorite camel's stable stall.

But now the word — make that, The Word — is that the sentence about uranium in the president's 4,000-plus word speech was "false intelligence," as ABC's Claire Shipman put it, and "wrong," according to NBC's Brian Williams. "The president campaigned for the job, in part, on the notion that he was the anti-Clinton, a man who said what he meant and meant what he said, no sentence parsing needed," said CNN's Aaron Brown, opining about the president's uranium statement. "Square that with today and critics who say you've got a bonanza for sentence parsers and at least the makings of a credibility gap."

A bonanza for sentence parsers? The makings of a credibility gap? Never mind that both Tony Blair and Jack Straw adamantly vouch for the uranium claim — insisting that British intelligence relied on secret information independent of now-discredited forgeries. And never mind that the U.S. government hasn't denied the British claim, but rather has been unable to corroborate it.

Donate to JWR

The fact is, the American media have summarily condemned the single sentence about uranium as a "hoax," as New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof put it, and "part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence," according to his colleague Paul Krugman — who, not incidentally, went on to do a little politicizing and corrupting of his own by inflating the original claim that Saddam Hussein had merely "sought" uranium (a verb that conveys a built-in sense of failure) into "the case of the bogus uranium purchases."

Bought, sought or nought, I confess that African uranium and Iraq never inserted itself, ore-like, into my own memory deposits. As I listened to State of the Union in January, I was more concerned with such facts as that the International Atomic Energy Agency had, as President Bush put it, "confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb." Also more memorable was Mr. Bush's reference to mounting evidence that Iraq, once upon a time home to arch-Palestinian terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, had a soft spot for Islamic terrorists, including Al Qaeda — a reference made vivid by subsequent reports about Jordanian Abu Murab Zarqawi, an Al Qaeda chemical expert believed to have fled Afghanistan in 2002 to receive urgently needed medical attention in Iraq.

Which could be why reports about the president's citation of the British uranium story haven't led me to question whether we have again met "the standard of impeachment" — as Democratic presidential candidate Bob Graham rather grotesquely worried in a recent speech. Nor would I demand that some assortment of unnamed administration officials ("they know who they are") resign, as Democratic candidate Howard Dean has already done. After all, war was made on Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to heed international pressure to disarm his arsenal of mass destruction — an arsenal that not only the Bush administration concluded it possessed, but, as the Washington Post editorial page recently noted, "the Clinton administration, as well as every major Western intelligence service" did as well. In an era in which Iraq's interests and capacities were converging with those of anti-Western Islamist terrorists, such disarmament was reason enough for war.

All of which is to say that whether Saddam Hussein did or did not seek uranium in Africa, war would still have been the answer. Had Bush officials deleted all 16 words of the uranium reference from the president's speech, the history of the invasion would probably read no differently. As former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explained, whether Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, "it doesn't change the fact that they were seeking to reconstitute a nuclear program."

Meanwhile, unless British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his foreign minister, Jack Straw, have decided to sign off on a lie, the British uranium claim is actually for real.

So much for the makings of the credibility gap the Aaron Browns and Howard Deans see forming — unless, of course, the credibility gap they talk about is the one that swallows up their own reputations.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.

07/14/03: Local news from 1894
07/07/03: Will July ninth be Iran's July Fourth?
06/27/03: A Dean's list of questions
06/20/03: Fanning the wrong flames
05/16/03: Speaking of terror
05/30/03: Facing reality at the DMV
05/27/03: Lost in The Matrix
05/19/03: A dubious diversity
05/09/03: Recalling the man who 'Banned in Boston'
05/02/03: Fellowships and flagellation
04/28/03: What Americans have to learn about cultural education
04/21/03: In Iraq, is democracy is in the eye of the beholder?
04/14/03: The greatest generation gap
03/31/03: The great gap between the West and the Middle East
03/21/03: They just wouldn't shut up!
03/10/03: Sorry apologies for speaking the truth
03/03/03: The Eurabian alliance
02/24/03: Searching for good news
02/18/03: Love and honor -- lost, found and murdered
02/03/03: A calm that causes concern
01/27/03: Playing politics with a T-shirt mentality
01/21/03: When understanding the East means losing the West
01/13/03: Is a war on Jews a war on democracy?
01/06/03: Bush must take a stand on affirmative action
12/30/02: Questions for reflection on 2002
12/16/02: The pre-emptive war goes Hollywood
12/09/02: Protest Augusta? Why not Sudan?
11/25/02: Something to contemplate this Ramadan
11/08/02: Does Eminem now fit in?
11/04/02: No time for gloating
11/04/02: What's in a name when the name is Muhammad?
10/28/02: Jihad as a First Amendment right
10/21/02: When speaking out isn't allowed
10/14/02: Terrorism in Maryland and abroad
09/30/02: So long urgency, hello indulgence
09/24/02: That one, sturdy, missing word
09/17/02: Fingerprinting, finally
09/09/02: When 'healing' overshadows reality
09/04/02: Tales from the Techno Valley and Forest
08/16/02: Elvis shall rise again
08/14/02: War with Iraq won't harm war on terror
08/06/02: Clinton snaps over Somalia
08/01/02: 9-11 anniversary shouldn't come with apology
07/27/02: An unstable common ground
07/25/02: Hillary fights hard for soft money
07/12/02: Goretheus unbound
07/10/02: Rosie takes a shine to Republicans
07/08/02: Are you still shocked, Sami?
07/02/02: Can Britney win hearts of the Middle East?
06/28/02: A war on terror or Islamists?
06/25/02: Blame the murderer, and the messenger
06/21/02: Up front and personal with Atta
06/18/02: Terrorism at the United Nations
06/11/02: Who's policing the INS?
06/07/02: Spa Gitmo
06/04/02: Can rock gods save the queen?
05/31/02: Hillary's war
05/29/02: Have you forgotten we're at war?
05/24/02: An antiquated luxury of the past
05/21/02: From terrorists to tourists
05/19/02: Hate U.
05/07/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
05/03/02: Pioneering television
05/01/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
04/29/02: It's the misconduct, stupid
04/24/02: Medal of diss-honor
04/17/02: Holy sanctuary or terrorist shield?
04/12/02: Egyptian clerics solicit martyrs for murder
04/09/02: Defining terrorism down
04/05/02: The Wilder life
04/02/02: Acting, equality and the Academy
03/31/02: Speeding to conclusions
03/25/02: Hard to remove blood (libel) stains
03/21/02: The tale of Nixon's tapes --- again
03/19/02: The Big Lie lives on
03/15/02: The tunnel vision of '9/11'
03/13/02: The American Auschwitz?
03/08/02: Hating the indoctrination of hate
03/05/02: Clinton and Enron: Old friends
03/01/02: Pickering doesn't polarize, the process does
02/26/02: Destiny's prefabricated child
02/22/02: The White House heist
02/20/02: Making the grade
02/11/02: Studying student visas
02/06/02: Understanding arrogance
02/04/02: The professor's war
01/29/02: Disconnected dialogue
01/23/02: Anti-Indiscrimination
01/18/02: How much is enough?
01/15/02: Oh brothers, where art thou?
01/10/02: Air on the side of caution
01/04/02: Blacks seeing red at Harvard
01/02/02: Clinton's campaign continues
12/26/01: A tale of two exhibitions
12/24/01: Taliban Idyll
12/19/01: Right is right
12/17/01: Hillary strikes out
12/13/01: Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...

© 2001, Diana West