One last post for they day on: Why the NYTimes Sucks

Well, i'm gonna take a cue from Powerline on this one, and look at the same issue that they have posted on. Since some of the people that read my blog (shout out to all 4 of ya!) don't think that Powerline is a good site and makes baby Jebus cry, I'll not link them but try to look at the story in my own way. If you read the NYT article, you will see that the majority of the article goes on about how unlikely it is that Saddam could buy uranium from Niger. The NYT gives the impression that with so many doubts, and there were plenty, about whether Saddam could get the uranium that the "16 words" that Bush had in his speech were a lie.

They entirely miss the point. The point isn't whether he COULD get them, but that he TRIED to. Neither this memo, from the State Dept. nor Wilson's trip, which if you read the accounts of his testimony to Congress you will see it did the opposite and showed that Iraq was more likely trying to get his hands on uranium enrichment technologies. And of course the latest rehashing also must say that the source was entirely British, was said to be British, and the British still hold fast to their report that Saddam did try, and failed, to get uranium from Niger.

I hate to beat a dead horse yet again, but the facts of the Niger situation are not really in dispute if you look only at what occured instead of posturing. And yet again we have the NYT to thank for writing an article that questions facts with vague accusations and paints a totally untrue picture. Its like me trying to give you all the reasons the sun goes around the earth even though anyone that looks for the facts can plainly prove me wrong. I can cast all the doubt on it I want, and give you lots of doubt if you don't know any better, but the facts are still the facts.