Joe Wilson, Democrats, and chronology

There's an interesting side to the Joe Wilson story that none seem to want to look at -- at least, none on the Left side of politics, none of the antiwar crowd.

When Joe Wilson, who went to Niger to check up on stories of Hussein's attempts to trade for nuclear-weapon component materials, first got back, the CIA and the British intelligence agencies summed up his mission thusly:

That Mr. Wilson's efforts showed that Saddam Hussein was attempting to open new trading possibilities with Niger; that Niger's chief exports are goats and the raw ore that facilitates nuclear weapon-building; that by showing an effort to open trade with Niger, the most likely odds are that Hussein is trying to obtain those materials necessary to build nuclear weapons.

I would add that it is rather hard to believe that Hussein would be trying to get goats from Niger. Sarcasm intended. World data shows that Niger's chief exports are livestock (hence, "goats" for sarcasm) and yellowcake. If, as Joe Wilsons' report states, that Iraq was looking to open trade with Niger, it makes little sense for them to be looking to trade for livestock. And that only leaves... yellowcake.

So no one, at any intelligence agency, remembers the summary of Joe Wilson's efforts the way Joe Wilson does. And no intelligence agency conclusion supports the version Joe Wilson tells now, either. In fact, reading Mr. Wilson's report, a reasonable conclusion is exactly what the intelligence agencies came up with: it's nonsensical to assume Hussein needed livestock, and that leaves yellowcake as a trading material.

The Senate Intelligence committee's years-long investigation and report on this also indicated and documented Joe Wilson as a liar and verified the chronology (which makes Mr. Wilson's now-selective memory of events also, er, mistaken) of what happened and when. The investigation by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald specifically stated that he is not indicting anyone for "outing" Valerie Plame, nor for anything else specific to the Wilson/Plame affair. In fact, the very splashy way that Mr. Wilson has been "outing" his own wife, particularly in their many magazine covers, renders his complaints largely moot. The Senate committee also said in its report that no one outed Ms. Plame, that the reporter's use of her name in no way impacted her ability to do her job, and that such complaints were 'without merit'. Yet Mr. Wilson and his wife continue to complain - and to rake in the cash that their now-celebrity status gives them, from the book tour, the lecture circuit, magazines, etc. I love it when someone complains that they've been "harmed" and can't make money like they used to -- even as they rake in more money than ever through lectures, talks, books, etc.

The sad affair of the American Left with a host of hypocritical, nonsensical spokespersons continues. From Michael "I never saw a fact I could ignore if it supported the conclusion I made BEFORE I investigated" Moore to Cindy "women were better off under Hussein than they are now" Sheehan to Joe "Ignore what I wrote when I got back, everyone was wrong but me" Wilson. There was a day when the Left had some geniune, deeply thoughtful philosophers on their side, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. That the Left has sunk so far as to be holding up hypocrites and apalling creatures like Sheehan as their heroes is not simply disgusting but truly and deeply saddening.

The little "stunt" of closing the Senate to a closed-door session early this week only furthers the Left's self-denial of reality. They complain about prewar Intelligence -- but remember, these same Democrats were privvy to the same intelligence the President had, and we can run down their quotes in support not simply of the war but of the idea that Hussein, whether or not he had WMDs, had to be stopped BEFORE he could acquire such things. Of course, their own memories have to be ignored, their own statements ignored, in order for their current argument ("Bush lied") to be valid. Especially since it makes they themselves liars, since they argued and stated clearly the same things they accuse Bush of "lying" about.

What is similar about all these things? The reliance on the Left of taking advantage of ignorance. They want to be able to "create" truth simply by stating something is true, rather than taking verifiable information and relating that as truth. They want to prejudge information before having the facts -- so, they "know" Bush lied about WMD's, rather than simply having relied on the best possible intelligence and made conclusions from that; so, they "know" that Karl Rove is guilty and should step down, despite the fact that the Special Prosecutor and the Grand Jury have said specifically that he has not been indicted nor even accused of anything yet, nor that they will do so. They "know" that Hussein wasn't going after WMD's, despite the obvious intelligence to the contrary (as indicated above), despite Bill Clinton's, and many Senate Democrat's, assertions in the late 1990s and early 2000s that Hussein had to be stopped, that he was clearly after WMD's, that he had to be stopped before he acquired them, etc.

So they make statements that are not proven and many not true, despite knowing the contrary, because it serves their ideological and political purposes. One of these days, it would be nice to have our politicians actually wait until an investigation was over and actual facts were known BEFORE they made their conclusions. You know, like we're taught to in our 100-level college courses, or even in junior high school.