removing the "mis" from information

Friday, July 02, 2004

Saddam Tried to Buy Uranium

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

What liberals don't seem to understand is that it can be downright deadly for the government to reveal all the information it knows during a war. In World War II, this concept was expressed simply as "Loose Lips Sink Ships." Either liberals are too unintelligent to grasp this very basic concept - let the enemy know what you know, and they will figure out how you got it, and kill off or learn to defeat all your intelligence assets - or they actually want to see coalition personnel die.

In this particular case, we knew Saddam was pursuing uranium from Niger. We had a set of declassifiable evidence which was not enough to be considered concrete, smoking-gun proof by the media bias brigade. We also had a classified set of evidence that was more credible, reliable, and thorough.

Yet Joe Wilson, who most certainly knew, both that the uranium story was true, and that the most conclusive evidence thereof had to remain classified, went public on the record and bore false witness against the President of the United States - and without any evidence to back his claim. The Democrat party, seditiously, feted him for his perfidy.

Now the truth has come out. And once again, a left-wing Big Lie, relentlessly hammered into the American consciousness and shouted from the rooftops, has been revealed for the falsehood it always was, as its originators and supporters must have always suspected, given the standard of evidence they demand, for example, on whether or not Saddam had WMDs.

To answer Seymour Hersh's major question, in the article that started it all (linked above under "Big Lie"):

Why did the Administration endorse a forgery about Iraq’s nuclear program?

I feel fairly confident the answer goes something like "Loose Lips Sink Ships".


Post a Comment

<< Home