Hitchens Encounters A Pink Elephant

by tristero

Christopher Hitchens seems to be arguing with hallucinations. In a recent Slate article, Hitchens makes the claim that, contra-Joe Wilson, Iraq indeed did seek to buy uranium from Niger.

However, unless I am misreading Wilson’s original op-ed, Wilson never disputed that, for the simple reason he never discussed what he learned about Iraq’s seeking behavior. What he said, and quite clearly, was regardless of what Iraq may have been seeking, such a transaction was extremely unlikely, given the amount of oversight and the politics of the countries involved in the Niger uranium mining. That is, Iraq may have sought yellowcake, but they did so in vain.

In fact Wilson’s mission was not to learn whether Iraq was seeking uranium. Instead, according to Wilson, his mission was in response to a report which described “a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake.” From his time sipping mint tea in Niger, Wilson learned this report was mistaken; no such sale could have taken place (in fact, Wilson says, the “memorandum of agreement” appeared, from press reports, to be a crude forgery ).

True, in re-reading the op-ed, Wilson does seem to go somewhat further than this simple assertion (which may be part of the reason for Bob Someby’s numerous howls at Wilson). Without saying so directly, he seems to imply that it was so utterly unlikely for Iraq to have succeeded in seeking yellowcake from Niger that by simply including the 16 words in such an important speech as SOTU, Bush grossly and irresponsibly exaggerated how far Iraq had gotten with whatever inquiries Iraq may have made. That implication is what made Wilson’s op-ed so alarming to the White House.

Nevertheless, Wilson does not dispute that Iraq was seeking yellowcake, only the seriousness with which those inquiries can be taken. (To be clear to our cognitively challenged rightwing pals: Wilson knew Iraq was serious; the question is whether there was a serious possibility they could ever succeed. He concluded there wasn’t.)

Assuming I haven’t misread Wilson, his focus is on whether a deal went down and if so, then Hitchens is debunking a pink elephant. Furthermore, if Wilson is right about the contents of the initial report that sent him to Niger in the first place, then Hitchens is dead wrong in asserting that “It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached.” Apparently, someone did.