Curiously, I heard that the British (Jack Straw, in particular) still says the uranium point was accurate. They say he was absolutely trying to buy uranium from Africa.
French Treachery By Michael Smith The London Daily Telegraph | July 14, 2003 The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday. MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission. US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission. A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence might lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed. US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence. British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a row between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. However, they admitted being surprised that George Tenet, the CIA director, had apologised to President George W Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech last October. The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Authority's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as fakes. Those documents have been widely identified with last September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa. British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said. They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment." The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes. There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents - which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true. "What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else." Michael Smith's new book The Spying Game, which examines the intelligence behind the September dossier, is published by Politico's. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting page on the White House site trying to make Bush look competent and engaged... shows him rewriting portions of the SOTU speech and giving pointers to the writing team. Hughes is involved as well. Hilarious in a sad sort of way, as they knew Clinton did a lot of his own writing and they tried to make it look like Bush does the same, but now that folks are trying to say the review process is complicated and nobody can remember what happened, they are hoisted on their own petard. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/preparation/index.html Sketching notes in the margin of speech drafts, President Bush rewrites portions of the address in the Oval Office Jan. 23, 2003. President Bush gives his speechwriting team a few points after revising the State of the Union Address in the Oval Office Jan. 23, 2003. Meeting with the President are, from left, Matthew Scully, John McConnell, Mike Gerson and Advisor Karen Hughes. Advisers listen to President Bush’s delivery of his speech in the family theater of the White House Jan. 24, 2003. After days of revisions and rehearsals, President Bush reads through his State of the Union speech during a late afternoon practice session in the family theater of the White House Monday, Jan. 27, 2003.
Gee, this is almost as bad as the endless "family photo" ops we had of Bill Clinton with Hillary and Chelsea after the Lewinsky affair was exposed...trying to make President Clinton look loyal and trustworthy..
I agree...lol...Clinton remotely loyal and trustworthy...Bush remotely intelligent or competent...lol... On the other hand, at least Clinton brought intelligence and competence...has Bush brought trustworthyness?
What's that old adage about A and B students working for C students? BTW, I think Clinton probably is <b>generally</b> loyal and trustworthy. I can "kind of" understand the tremendous loyalty he enjoys from his supporters. He does have his weaknesses, though! Bush may not be the brightest bulb in the closet but he's no Dumbo either. I have no problems with Bush's trustworthiness. This Niger-Uranium debate is your classic "mountain out of a molehill" phenomena. We did not go to war over this single issue. It was but 1 of 5 sources cited in the SOTU 2003 back in January-- 6 months ago! This is just political hay-making.
Claiming a country has a nuclear program underway is not making a mountain out of mole hill. When Pakistan and India had its nuclear weapons pointed at each, I seem to remember the world being very concerned about the situation. I don't know about you giddyup, but me and the rest of world, no matter what political affiliation, get a little more concerned over nuclear weapons rather than your average issue.
Huh? So why are you concerned? As it turns out, apparently IRaq's nuclear program was nowhere near as far along as feared. isn't that good news? The "mountain-out-of-a-molehill" phenomena is trying to use this one apparent error as a source of poison for the whole Bush war strategy. I'm talking the political angle not world security.
I know what you're talking about, and claiming someone has a nuclear program, to help build support for a war is a big deal. I apologize if you misunderstood, but Bush can't go around making unsubstainiated claims about nuclear weapons to build support for his campaign against Iraq when his sources are shaky at the very least. And the fact that they knew that the information probably wasn't realiable, and still used it in the STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS is unacceptable. You are acting like just because its one mistake its alright, but claiming a country is starting a nuclear program, may only be one mistake, but its a big mistake when you use that info to start a pre-emptive war.
It's not exactly good news. Sure, we are all glad Iraq had no nukes but the CIA told the Administration that the intel suggesting they did was incorrect without the need or cost of war. You can't invade and occupy other countries based on circumspect intel or hunches. When it comes to war, you'd damn well better have proof. Bush and his compadres made a "mountain-out-of-a-molehill" of suspect intel cited in a British report by invoking that intel in a Union address to support their position. If the Administration had solid footing for going to war, then wouldn't it have been smarter to heed the CIA's warning and not reference this nuclear intel as well as make bold, false claims about Iraq's WMd program and Iraq's relationship with Al "Saudi money" Queda?
This has become the standard defense of the nuke scandal...Yeah, it was a mistake, but it wasn't the only reason we went. Unfortunately, several facts don't back up this position: 1) The US announced, on several occassions, that WMD, and nukes in particular, was THE reason for the war...and went so far as to state that Saddam could avoid the war by simply disarming. Period. Reason for war, end of argument. 2) Polls showed clearly that there was little public support for the war until the admin floated the nuke sacre...at which point they got the support they sought. To now claim that the other reasons...which weren't good enough then...are good enough now is a completely unfounded and revisionist position. 3) If it isn't that big of a deal, then whu have the administration...not to mention pro-war people in this very site...spent so long trying to deny that it was wrong to begin with. I myslef have been 'ed, lol'd, called liar, traitor, Chicken Little, Saddam lover, and US hater for suggesting that out intel wasn't sufficient cause for war...and several people asked me to move to Iraq, as I 'obviouly trusted what Saddam says more than what Bush says'...and all of this over a molehill? I think not. 4) Credibility is an issue here. Lawyers spend a great deal of time and effort trying to catch key witnesses in just one lie...any one...as it follows that if person A lied about one thing, we can't trust them about others. Raise the stakes here to an administration, and rather than testimony, make it about reasons for a war where thousands dies, and I think that finding that the admin knowingly used suspect intel to get the people to support the war, and if this is a molehill, it's the Molehill of the Milenium...
1. While WMD's were a major reason for the war, the administration also gave other compelling reasons. The humanitarian reason, the legal reason (through the UN), and strategic reasons (democratizing the Middle East, restarting the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and moving troops out of Saudi Arabia, though I think the last one was unstated). 2. Please support this assertion. It is also true that polls show that the people think the war was justified anyways. 4. So what else did Bush lie about then?
1) Other reasons may have been complelling...to you, and those that agree with you. However they were not reasons for, WMD was. I ask again...if WMD weren't the reason for the war, then why did we repeatedly say that if that one issue was resolved, ie. Saddam disarms, there would be no war? I have yet to hear any credible response to this...and to give credit where it's due, this was FB's point intially, but I have yet to see anyone refute it. 2) I don't even know where to get this info...others can do that, I'm not goood at on-line stuff like that. But I remember it without any doubt from the time itself. Please, someone who is good at this stuff, Woofer, FB, NW, etc...help out here. 3) Okay...semantics. I said lie as in the example...it extends to making false claims, to providing false evidence, etc...and whether Bush intentionally lied, or was so incredibly inept that he overlooked info he'd had for over a month is up to you to decide, either way his credibility is at issue. I ask you...which would you prefer?
There are compelling humanitarian and legal reasons for overthrowing every tyrant on the globe. Since the US can't fight every battle on Earth, a higher standard--imminent threat to US, WMD proliferation, etc.--must be adopted to start a war. The real question, the same one anti-war people have been asking from the beginning, is why Iraq and why now? IMO, the strategic reasons--democatizing the ME, having a military presence in the ME, securing a steady flow of ME oil (undermining OPEC)--were the real reasons for this war. The other stuff (the lies, exaggeration and deception) was to simplify the issues for public consumption. Bottomline: the Administration obviously took us to war under false pretenses. I don't care how many of the "minor" reasons for going to war turn out to be accurate. The major compelling reasons the administration gave for this war--the basis of their sales pitch--were fale. I don't care what political alignment the President follows, he should not be allowed to dupe the public into supporting a war they otherwise would not have supported.
Your attempt at reducing this to a single issue sticks out. Need I remind: <b>Operation Iraqi Freedom</b>. As I understand it, the air is not entirely clear about this matter. No matter, really. Intel is not certainly reliable.
<b>MacBeth</b>: The debate is getting muddled by the timeline. Thiere is one argument ongoing about what the message of the SOTU2003 was and another about how the issues surrounding the decision to invade Iraq devolved. I'm not so certain as you seem to be about what was hot and topical when. My "recollection" was more along the lines that we are coming <b>now</b> if you don't disarm, Saddam. His other brutalities remain and his "support" of terrorists was still probable-- which is what kicked this event off.
Just to be clear, the Molehill that I speak of is the one being built to make a political football out of this situation. Again, it was but one of five sources cited in the SOTU2003. WMD are but one of several reasons given to justify the regime change in Iraq.
You're right. I am too busy trying to make this about one issue: whether or not the President mislead the public about the intel used to justify the war. Why not have a congressional investigation to clear up the matter?
