He may be guilty of parsing language too sharply from time to time and losing the larger context, but in this case he points to how the rallying around Wilson by the press and the left undercut the larger issues surrounding the propaganda campaign in the Iraq War build-up.
I would ask that you keep an open mind and read his comments after the fold...
LOGIC MATTERS: As happens every year at this time, HOWLER readers are upset by our views on Joe Wilson. As we move on from the annual squabble, let's note one simple point about the importance of logic.
As far as we know, Wilson's trip to Niger was completely appropriate, as was his performance while there. (For the record, everyone agrees that Wilson performed admirably during his earlier days in Iraq.) And we'll assume his principal conclusion was sound--most likely, Iraq hadn't purchased uranium from Niger, he judged after making his trip. (Wilson, 7/6/03, New York Times: "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.") But his New York Times piece should never have run in the form it took--because of its groaning illogic. As we noted yesterday, nothing in Wilson's now-famous piece contradicted what Bush had actually said--that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa (according to British intelligence). Yes, as we have often noted, the current New York Times op-ed page is like the Smithsonian of groaning illogic. But frankly, we're surprised at our readers (as we are every year at this time). Few seem troubled by the fact that Wilson's piece was deeply illogical, right to its core. Bush didn't say a transaction took place; he only said a transaction was sought. Simply put, Wilson didn't speak to what Bush said. But he never seemed to realize. Neither did his New York Times editor.
For the record, there were other groaning problems with the logic of Wilson's piece. Bush described an attempt to purchase uranium "in Africa"--and Wilson had only gone to Niger. Why did he think that his experience there could address the entire continent? Even in his 500-page book, he never explained this conundrum. (Indeed, in a typical bit of confusion, Wilson said there were only three other countries that could be involved--Gabon, South Africa and Namibia. If he had done elementary background reading, he would have known that the British press roiled with speculation about the Congo when the intelligence report in question had been discussed the previous fall. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/28/03.) Meanwhile, since Bush was referring to British intelligence that no one in the US had ever seen, it's hard to know why Wilson thought that he could rule out what the Brit intel said. But these elementary points weren't addressed in his piece. To all appearances, he didn't see the illogic all around. Neither did his ed at the Times.
Does it matter if columns are wholly illogical? Only if you want a rational world--and that should be one of your wishes. Logic--rationality--is a part of intellectual due process, and whenever due process is undermined, it eventually serves the interests of power. Yes, it's true: In this case, the hapless press corps took Wilson's side, as they have continued to do, even after the embarrassment of that Intelligence Committee report. But frankly, we're amazed to see how many readers don't care about an elementary fact--Wilson's piece simply doesn't make sense. To our readers, it works like this: They don't like Bush, and neither does Wilson. All else can be overlooked!
Everything else can be overlooked--but that's a bad prescription. What happened when your hapless press corps fell in love with The Honest Ambassador? Here's what happened: They spent huge time on a murky side road, while ignoring much more clear-cut ways the Bush Admin had "fixed the intelligence." As we noted last month in a week-long report, the Bush Admin began pimping the nukes in August 2002, five months before Bush's 16-word statement; the fixing of intel they did at that time was much more clear-cut (and much more consequential) than Bush's later, one-time statement, a statement which was completely ignored at the time it was made (again, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/28/03). To this day, libs still rail against that famous statement--a statement the Brits still say is well-founded. Much more clear-cut "fixing" has been ignored. Libs have settled for the scrap their hapless press handed them.
Why did the press love the 16 words? Speculation--they fell in love with the story! It had every kind of cinematic value: An Honest Ambassador; a Blonde Secret Agent; an exotic foreign country; a short, pithy statement. (They're in thrall to easy-reader values--and this easy-reader scandal could just as well have been scripted by Cliff.) In fact, that Honest Ambassador was completely illogical--but when has the press ever cared about that? No, Wilson's piece simply didn't make sense. But when has that bothered your press corps?
We've challenged bullshit statements for the past seven years--and sadly, this column was such a statement. Who knows? If Wilson's New York Times editor had passed it back and asked him to re-examine his premises, maybe he would have ended up with a column that made basic sense. But the current Times op-ed page is the Smithsonian of grinding illogic. Wilson's piece was a major example. Libs, selling cheap, still don't care.