This is outrageous.

A UK government inquiry into the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq is expected to conclude that Britain's spies were correct to say that Saddam Hussein's regime sought to buy uranium from Niger. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Last night I asked myself whether the Philadelphia Inquirer would be reporting it, and this morning I checked.

Lo and behold; no story! But I think I'll check their website right now, because sometimes things make it in there that aren't reported in the hard copy.

Nope. There's only this report -- about how the U.S. -- "without U.N. authorization" -- removed yellow cake uranium and other radioactive material from Iraq. (How dare we!)

Not long ago, Bush's "deceptive" reference to the attempted Iraqi purchase of yellow cake uranium was one of the biggest stories of the year. Because Bush was said to have relied on bad intel, there were repeated cries for impeachment. And now that it turns out the Iraqis did attempt to purchase uranium after all, it's not news.

No retraction, not a word. No news may be reported which might conceivably make Bush look good, particularly if it vindicates him over something once considered grounds for impeachment.

To be fair to the media, though, there is growing concern that Bush is manipulating events in order to win reelection.

[E]ven as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.
(From Hugh Hewitt, via Glenn Reynolds.)

Perhaps BUSH KNEW all along that there really was evidence to support the yellow cake uranium report. It was part of his reelection strategy to send the incompetent Joseph Palme Wilson to Niger, leak his wife's identity, release deliberately forged reports as a cover, first admitting they were false but knowing all along that the true ones would eventually surface a few months before the election, all as part of a reelection strategy!

Such sophisticated, masterful manipulation!

(And I thought Bush was supposed to be stupid.....)

MORE (ON LESS NEWS): Arnold Kling demonstrates that the "basic determinant of our standard of living has increased [under the evil Bush adminstration] by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration", but it's not being reported, despite the fact that the Bush administration is not claiming credit for it:

The other reason that the productivity story is not big news is that the current Administration is unpopular with the media. As much as the media is averse to reporting good news, I think that productivity would receive greater coverage if the big gains were taking place on a Democratic President's watch. The upbeat productivity data would "fit" the story of competent Democratic stewardship of the economy. But it would spoil the narrative of the Bush Administration as bumbling and Hoover-esque to point out that the most fundamental measure of our economic strength is shooting through the roof. It's not that I think that high productivity growth is a partisan story that reflects well on President Bush. But the failure to report on the phenomenon is a partisan story that reflects poorly on the ability of the press to rise above its biases and keep the public informed. (Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Hmmmmmm.....

Perhaps economic productivity is being deliberately stimulated as part of an election strategy.

Sure sounds evil to me!

UPDATE: Another monstrosity was the LA Examiner reporting that Paul Bremer made no farewell speech when he had, which speech was freely available. Where do these big media tyrants think they are? The Soviet Union under Stalin?