Not a Surprise, but. . .

It is always a wonder to me what gets play and what doesn't in the mainstream press.  So, I was taken a little aback this morning with a seemingly important story in the New York Times about a 2002 State Department memo questioning the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq. It was in the inside pages, and to my knowledge, I haven't heard much about it on any media outlets.  

Jan 18, 2006 -- 11:25:24 AM EST

Now, much has been said about the claim itself: Bush's State of the Union speech, Ambassador Wilson's questioning of the claim, and ultimately the investigation against Scooter Libby.  

The State Department was always skeptical of such claims, but the memo (at least as described in the Times) seems like a pretty analytical and thorough assessment of why the uranium pass-off was unlikely.  (The memo was released because of a FOIA request).

This seems to me to be a pretty important development, because one has to assume that the Iraq Group (Cheney, etc.) had it in their possession.  That it would be so easily dismissed might make sense if it were just conjecture.  But, based on the analysis described, it seems that such an analysis would have been almost impossible to dismiss considering that the alternative evidence was always suspect (the forgery memos).

Another case of no evidence trumping some compelling evidence.  Maybe we are all so jaded it doesn't matter anymore.   LINK