This morning’s report of a nuke find in Iraq is sounding more and more unlikely:

U.S. and Iraqi officials are denying a newspaper report claiming nuclear weapons have been found near Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. …

“Nothing’s been found,” Master Sgt. Robert Cowens, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division, based in Tikrit, told UPI. “The report is not factual.”

The AP says the military is “still checking on the report”:

“We did an initial check on the weapons question … and we don’t have any additional information at this time,” a senior military official said

But it sure sounds like this is going nowhere.

This, if true, would change everything:

BAGHDAD, July 21 (UPI) — Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. …

The report could not be authenticated by the interior ministry or the national security department, but the paper noted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zibari made a surprise request recently to Mohammed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resume inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The key phrase is “if true.” The Iraqi Interior Ministry has issued a sort of non-denial-denial, calling the report of the nuke find “stupid.” The U.S. military has “no information” one way or the other, and is “checking the report.”

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: My dad is skeptical. For the record, so am I. So is InstaPundit. So is California Yankee, who says, “If the report were accurate, officials wouldn’t have to be checking it.” A Command Post commenter writes, “So, UPI is reporting on a report from an Iraqi newspaper - don’t you love third-hand stories?” More blog reaction here and here.

P.S. If it’s true that UPI’s only source was the Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah — that they did not have independent confirmation from Iraqi officials of the nuke report — then the lede of the UPI article is journalistically incorrect: “Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.”

If UPI’s only source was al-Sabah, the lede should have concluded, “official sources said Wednesday, according to Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah.”

Yes, al-Sabah was mentioned in the second paragraph, but the lede made it sound like UPI had independent confirmation from official sources. You never end a sentence with “sources said” unless you yourself spoke to those sources; otherwise you have to say, “sources said, according to [X].”

UPDATE: “Nothing’s been found. The report is not factual.”

I’m still waiting for President Bush to take Andrew’s advice and say, “I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness.”

Alas, yesterday’s speech on Iraq — whether one agrees or disagrees with its justifications for war — definitely contains no hint of responsibility or humility:

Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever.

America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq’s weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil, who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, who used chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children, is finally before the bar of justice. (Applause.) Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region. And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world. Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Here’s what he said on Friday:

The Senate is looking at intelligence failures, and should. We all ought to welcome an investigation about where we went right and wrong with our intelligence-gathering. You know why? Because it’s important for a President and the Congress to get the best intelligence possible in this war against these terrorists. One of the key components of finding out who is going to hurt us is good intelligence. And there are a lot of really good people working in our intelligence-gathering, by the way — dedicated, solid, fine Americans. They, too, want the intelligence services to be as effective as possible. So I welcome their investigation. I really do.

And like members of the Senate and the House, we thought there would be stockpiles of weapons. We haven’t found them yet. We do know, however, and I just want you to remember, that the man had the capacity to make weapons. He had the ability to make weapons. He had the intent and the capability, which is why I say I would have done it again, because he’s a dangerous person.

It’s not that I think Bush is wrong when he says we were still justified in attacking Iraq. I personally agree. But I’m offended and appalled by his continuing attempts to pass off one of the greatest and most consequential intelligence blunders in our nation’s history as a minor speed bump worthy of no more than a passing mention in the course of rehashing his favorite arguments in favor of the war. What we need, and deserve, is accountability; what we’re getting is damage control.

It bears repeating: by refusing to straightforwardly take responsibility for this massive failure that occurred on his watch in the organization that he purportedly leads — the executive branch of the U.S. government — Bush is demonstrating once again that he does not actually possess the qualities of true leadership. Leaders forthrightly own up to their mistakes and the mistakes of their organizations, apologize for them, and then demonstrate by their words and deeds how serious they are about correcting the problems and preventing such mistakes in the future. Bush’s failure to do all of that — his failure to lead — is, as I’ve said before, enough reason by itself to vote against him (though there are many others). As someone once said, “This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.”

Below, my dad offers us three 12th of July audio posts (1, 2, 3). Here’s one more for y’all:

12thofjuly.wav (0:27, 424 KB)

Up the Republic! :)

I could drone on and on about the prewar intelligence failures outlined in today’s Senate Intelligence Committee report, but let’s be honest: been there, done that. My opinion on this subject hasn’t changed in months; regular readers know exactly where I stand. More interesting, I think, is Andrew’s opinion, which he e-mailed to me this morning and which I now reprint here with his permission:

I think now the president needs to act, or more specifically, speak. Remember as we argued this over the past year that I said it wasn’t time to make a judgment, that Bush should wait until this has been investigated, that we should wait and see what we find in Iraq, etc. etc.? Well, that time has come, more or less.

What Bush needs to do, IMO, is go before the American people, and say, “Our intelligence is wrong. I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness. We are working to overcome our intelligence failures, and I support the committee’s suggestions for what we need to do to build a better intelligence community that can more accurately assess the threats we face in the future. However, I want to make clear that I still believe, now more than ever, that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions, Saddam was a murderous dictator, and the possibility of Saddam working with terrorists was not something we could tolerate. We have liberated a great people who are now on the way to democracy and freedom, and we must continue to support the men and women of our armed forces as they make sacrifices and work to help the Iraqis secure a democratic, safe, peace-loving society. And I would add that the intelligence is clear about other threats we face, including Iran, which is presently and actively working to undermine our efforts in Iraq, and is also defying UN and nuclear treaties. Iran becoming a nuclear state is not an outcome we can allow, and we must act–with diplomacy, multilateralism, but war if we must–to prevent that from occurring. Similarly, the North Korean threat is grave, and we will continue pursuing every avenue to eliminate the threat of North Korean WMDs being used in either war or falling into the hands of terrorists…..” Etc. etc.

I basically agree. If Bush were to say all that — including, emphatically and without reservation, the part about “I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness” — then I would be a heck of a lot happier with him. It would, in my view, be several months overdue, but better late than never, as they say.

Alas, I seriously doubt Bush will do this; I suspect he will continue his ongoing, mealymouthed technique of changing the subject to the second part of Andrew’s suggested speech without ever straightforwardly addressing the first part. But if Bush did what Andrew suggests, I would commend him, and I would tone down my rhetoric against him with regard to the WMD issue. On the other hand, as long as he does not do it, I will continue to say that his attitude toward this issue is fundamentally dishonest and is, by itself, a good reason (on top of all the other good reasons) to fire him on Nov. 2.

Oh, I almost forgot, Andrew insisted that I add this line to the end of his suggested Bush speech: “And finally, I want to say that, damn straight I have Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East

“This is all theater, the real criminal is Bush,” declares the deposed tyrant. He also called the Kuwaitis “dogs.” Story here.

The Command Post has more on Saddam’s big day.

In other news… no Weapons of Mass Destruction there, either.

Roger Franklin from Australia’s The Age says America is making war “on a butcher’s Baghdad, on terror, and on cultists who worship not Allah but death itself.” I like that. Good description.

Meanwhile, some stupid liberal writing for The Age thinks people who criticize him are censoring him; thinks a targeted bombing campaign that has killed a remarkably small number of civilians is the same thing as “unrestrained slaughter”; and thinks that the U.N.’s disarmament of Iraq was — get this — an unrestrained success! “When the job,” meaning disarmament, “was done, (Bush) was ready to go to war against a defenceless nation.” The job was done??? A defenceless nation??? Wow, you know what I would say if I could meet this guy? I think it would be something along the lines of, “You are an arrogant, uneducated ass.”

He also offers this lovely sentiment: “My guess is that what the average anti-war protester wants is for every Australian gun to jam in the dust; every tank grind to a halt with sand in its gears; every aeroplane to be grounded by a great haboob, so that they can neither kill nor be killed.” Neither kill nor be killed??? Yeah, because surely if the Australians or other Allies were rendered defenseless, they wouldn’t be killed by Iraqis. Of course not.

Ass.

The Iraqi dictator doesn’t stand a chance against the fierce kitten-soldier.

Click here for more photos!

Here’s what the front pages of three Australian newspapers front pages looked like this morning:

For a larger JPEG of the Sydney Morning Herald front page, click here.
For a really detailed view — a PDF file — of the Herald, click here.
To view today’s New York Times front page, click here.

Among other things, the dreadful terror bombing in Bali may wind up having a devastating effect on Australia’s football (soccer) leagues, whose players frequent the popular nightclubs that were bombed. A number of players are missing. Here’s an article about that. For the very latest news from Australia, click here.

And, uh, Happy Winter to our Australian friends. :)