The WaPo's front page propaganda

The Washington Post gives front page treatment today to a propagandistic "news" article  by Peter Eisner on the forged letter that is falsely claimed to have played a leading role in leading the United States into war with Iraq.  The dishonesty of the effort is given away in the first two paragraphs of the lengthy piece:

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa? [emphases added]
Bush never claimed, nor the did the British (who stand by their report) that uranium was sold. Conflating those two very different acts is unconscionable. But the entire piece seems aimed at reinforcing impressions created in the minds of people who haven't been paying particularly close attention.

Eisner speaks of the French and Italian involvement.  Since the speech stated the "British Government has learned", he should have elaborated on their involvement, but there is nothing at all in the article about the Brits or why Bush specifically refers to them.

He matter-of-factly glosses over Wilson being sent by the "CIA" and fails to mention that he was sent by his wife, and that both hated Bush.  Also, here is a thought: if the CIA is investing the authenticity of intelligence, why do so with a "former ambassador"?  What are his qualifications to investigate?  Why not send a team of seasoned CIA forensic experts?  I have never seen this question asked.

It was, after all, the responsibility of Valerie Plame's anti-proliferation group within the CIA to be on top of the quality of intelligence on this subject.

His description of the "special counsel's investigation" makes it seem like there was a huge conspiracy uncovered, when in fact, it proved that there was not one at all.  He says the investigation "exposed inner workings of the White House".  What did it expose?  Armitage is the one who "outed" Plame, and he worked in the State Dept.

Furthermore, the uranium claim is not what became the case for the war. 

Eisner is recycling garbage from Henry Waxman's committee. Tom Maguire dissected Waxman's footwork a couple of days ago here at Just One Minute.

Of course, the refutation of this propaganda requires readers to pay attention and keep in mind a lot of facts. That's why the propagandists have such success with it.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman
The Washington Post gives front page treatment today to a propagandistic "news" article  by Peter Eisner on the forged letter that is falsely claimed to have played a leading role in leading the United States into war with Iraq.  The dishonesty of the effort is given away in the first two paragraphs of the lengthy piece:

It was 3 a.m. in Italy on Jan. 29, 2003, when President Bush in Washington began reading his State of the Union address that included the now famous -- later retracted -- 16 words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Like most Europeans, Elisabetta Burba, an investigative reporter for the Italian newsweekly Panorama, waited until the next day to read the newspaper accounts of Bush's remarks. But when she came to the 16 words, she recalled, she got a sudden sinking feeling in her stomach. She wondered: How could the American president have mentioned a uranium sale from Africa? [emphases added]
Bush never claimed, nor the did the British (who stand by their report) that uranium was sold. Conflating those two very different acts is unconscionable. But the entire piece seems aimed at reinforcing impressions created in the minds of people who haven't been paying particularly close attention.

Eisner speaks of the French and Italian involvement.  Since the speech stated the "British Government has learned", he should have elaborated on their involvement, but there is nothing at all in the article about the Brits or why Bush specifically refers to them.

He matter-of-factly glosses over Wilson being sent by the "CIA" and fails to mention that he was sent by his wife, and that both hated Bush.  Also, here is a thought: if the CIA is investing the authenticity of intelligence, why do so with a "former ambassador"?  What are his qualifications to investigate?  Why not send a team of seasoned CIA forensic experts?  I have never seen this question asked.

It was, after all, the responsibility of Valerie Plame's anti-proliferation group within the CIA to be on top of the quality of intelligence on this subject.

His description of the "special counsel's investigation" makes it seem like there was a huge conspiracy uncovered, when in fact, it proved that there was not one at all.  He says the investigation "exposed inner workings of the White House".  What did it expose?  Armitage is the one who "outed" Plame, and he worked in the State Dept.

Furthermore, the uranium claim is not what became the case for the war. 

Eisner is recycling garbage from Henry Waxman's committee. Tom Maguire dissected Waxman's footwork a couple of days ago here at Just One Minute.

Of course, the refutation of this propaganda requires readers to pay attention and keep in mind a lot of facts. That's why the propagandists have such success with it.

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman