Is the anti-war camp being hurt by the Niger story?
Even with my earlier post about the Daily Howler’s coverage of the press coverage of the Niger story, I’m inclined to agree with them now, or at least today’s post. We know the Niger claim isn’t accurate, but there are 3 other African countries that are known to produce uranium. The impression I got from Joesph Wilson on the Daily Show on Thursday night, is that these countries are monitored by the IAEA. Now, another thing, the SOTU didn’t say that Iraq acquired uranium, it said it sought uranium from Africa. Acquired seems very unlikely, sought is possible. I really don’t know.
Now, should this be the only thing that Bush is criticised for? No. Should it even be the main thing? No. There are other claims, like claiming the trailers are biological labs, claiming the tubes were for nuclear weapons, and the 9/11 report’s dismissal of Iraq-al Qaeda links.
So when the press latches onto the Niger story, a claim that could still be accurate, does it hurt the anti-war camp? Don’t people think if this is the best they have, the war was still completely justified? People still think the media is liberal, wouldn’t they see this as grasping for straws? I can see why people (myself included) were happy to see the Niger criticism, but isn’t it doing more harm than good? I suppose I may be expecting too much of the press corps; they finally decide to criticise Bush, and it may actually be worse for us.
