Bush: CIA raised doubts AFTER the speech. ROTFL

I think that we should all hope that this is a Jayson Blair article (I haven't seen the quote elsewhere).

If it is not, then the 5% credibility that Bush had is gone. If he really said this, the President has taken "lying in such a flagrant manner that either he is really really stupid, or else he thinks that I am stupid" to a whole new level.

-------
an article on washington post
President Defends Allegations On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address

By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01

President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements. The matter has become increasingly charged, as Democrats demand hearings about Bush's broader use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

The president's remarks yesterday came as evidence emerged that the administration had information that seemed to guarantee that Iraq probably could not acquire nuclear material from Niger. A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House.

A spokesman for Myers said last night that the general has "no recollection of the information" but did not doubt that it had been forwarded to him. "Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects," said Capt. Frank Thorp, the chairman's spokesman.

In an interview, Fulford said he came away "assured" that the supply of "yellowcake" was kept secure by a French consortium. Both Fulford, then deputy commander of the U.S. European Command and his commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, said the issue did not surface again, although they were both routinely briefed on weapons proliferation in Africa. "I was convinced it was not an issue," Fulford said.

Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.

Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.

The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged. Before an October 2002 speech by Bush, the CIA succeeded in removing a reference to an Iraq-Niger connection because of doubts about the intelligence.

The charge was revived for the State of the Union speech in January but referred to Africa generally and attributed the information to the British, even though the CIA had expressed reservations to the British about including some of the information in its public dossier on Iraq.

In that speech, Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

On Friday, Bush and top aides said the CIA approved the inclusion of those words, and CIA Director George J. Tenet took responsibility. Yet Bush aides have argued in recent days that the statement may, in fact, prove to be correct. Officials said Sunday the British had sources other than the forged documents, but they have declined to reveal them.

Yesterday Bush defended the charge as he fielded questions after a meeting in the Oval Office with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence," he said. "And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

The president again noted that his speech was approved by the CIA and suggested that any doubts about the charge came after the speech. "The thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data," he said. "Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech."
(heb note: oh my friggin' god. Is there a republican on this board other than say_jack that will dare defend this lying SACK OF ****. Who buys this stuff, people in the heart land?)

Bush's remarks added to contradictions that have been presented by administration officials as they have sought to explain the use of the uranium charge in the State of the Union speech.

Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, said last week that Bush was not angry to learn the charge was based on flawed information. Bush himself has voiced no regret or irritation in public.

But at his briefing yesterday, Fleischer described a displeased Bush. "I assure you, the president is not pleased," he said. "The president, of course, would not be pleased if he said something in the State of the Union that may or may not have been true and should not have risen to his level."

Also, Bartlett, discussing the State of the Union address, said last week that "there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on." But on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought." Rice said "some specifics about amount and place were taken out." Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected, and "the language was changed."

Fleischer said yesterday Rice was not referring to the State of the Union reference but to Bush's October speech given in Cincinnati -- even though Rice was not asked about that speech. Fleischer said that while the line cut from the October speech was based on the Niger allegations, he said the State of the Union claim was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was possible that Saddam was seeking uranium."

But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week earlier that the State of the Union charge was "based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger." Rice was asked a month ago about Bush's State of the Union uranium claim on ABC's "This Week" and replied: "The intelligence community did not know at the time or at levels that got to us that there was serious questions about this report." But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

CIA officials raised doubts about the Niger claims, as Tenet outlined Friday. The last time was when "CIA officials reviewing the draft remarks" of the State of the Union "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet's statement said. "Some of the language was changed."

The change included using British intelligence as the source of the information. The CIA, however, continued to doubt the reliability of the British claim.

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

Woofer reminded me to use small fonts.

 

Which article is that Roxtxia?

Incidentally, I agree about Rice. I can't believe so many people are bamboozled by these simpletons. I realize that Pole is captivated by Rice's legs... but listen to what is coming out of the lying sack's mouth. Mouth, not legs. Mouth.

I am still waiting on people to call a spade a spade. There are some in the "he lied, but for good reason" camp; I can at least follow the dots on that rhetoric; but there are others that are emphatic that lying is reproachable... but they hesitate to label this president a liar.

BTW, here's another beaut, brought out earlier in this and another post. I ask those persons MadMax, giddyup, etc. to explain to me what this line captivates. Please steer clear of the semantics. Tell me if this is a truth or a lie:


Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Is this true or not? From what you guys know, did the CIA raise doubts about that line before or after the speech?

Is the person you voted for a complete fool or a liar? If he's a complete fool will you vote for him again? If he's a liar will you vote for him again?

Thanks for your time.

 

I just read it mc mark... as fb said... it is too surreal.

If this story gets traction (ie why such little coverage; it's as "lie" as lie will ever be) then the ideological revolution per Wolfowitz/Perle/Cheney is over.

On an election note, I think we're getting close to the point in which even Kerry couldn't screw it up.... but I think we should put a nail in it...

come on... Clark!

 

I just got "we don't have to take our clothes off to have a good time" stuck in my wife's head. Hopefully that doesn't come back to bite me.

River, definitely.

I'm still asking those brave souls to confront these two lies. Max? heath? giddyup? treeman? bammajamma, Mr. Clutch et. al.

If I told you that Iraq refused to let inspectors in, you'd call me misinformed or label me a liar. By the quotes on this page, is Bush misinformed or is he a liar?

If I told you that the CIA didn't raise doubts about the information until after the speech, you'd call me misinformed or label me a liar. Is Bush misinformed or is he a liar?

Thanks for your time.

 

Max, it's certainly shocking. He has to know we know. And I don't attribute this to him being a complete moron. Actually I think he was frazzled by the way things are falling apart for him, and he got carried away and just started going off of the cuff.

So yeah, I think that one's a lie. I don't qualify it really w/ words like "absolute" or "literal" b/c an untruth is an untruth (not religious but I was raised in the bible belt, so extremes are my forte ). I think you'd agree that "absolute" and "literal" shouldn't be used to clarify Clinton's lies. A lie is a lie.

If Bush had the flu and was delirious, I'll give him a pass; otherwise it just fits into the broader scheme of him being a lying sack of ****.

The other lie refers to the bolded title of this article. Bush made the claim that the CIA didn't object to his line about yellowcake until after the speech. That's not true. That's a lie, according to Bush's own staff, himself just a week ago, and his scapegoat too.

 

I agree that there are misstatements and lies, of course (my joke about south carolina objectivism not withstanding). Certainly Clinton meant to mislead, and I think that's where your distinction is...

however, even though the CIA claim is far more damning than the claim about Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors into Iraq, I am afraid that is b/c everybody "misunderestimates" Bush. So many people will attribute that quote to Bush's (lack of) intellect (see mc mark's post above )

But I wonder if it was a rationalization... something akin to a 7 year old caught beating up his little brother... the pressure of mommie's quivering lip... or all of the cameras and the first bit of pressure that Bush has had to face.

We'll see. Either the White House will correct the misstatement or they'll lay low. If they lay low, I'll assume that they meant to mislead.

 

MadMax, do you think that the President of the United States should make those sort of misstatements? I say stupid things like that, but honestly... I should never be the President of the United States.

Do you think Clinton would make a misstatement like that? Blair? If not, why?

You seem to be insinuating that President Bush is not intelligent. I think that's mean spirited.

Instead, I suggest that Bush is a liar.