From today's press gaggle -- QUESTION: Was the President aware that the Defense Intelligence Agency had found that there was no evidence of WMD in the trailers two days before the President said that there was evidence of that? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, the President made his -- the President's comments were based on the intelligence assessment of the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that was publicly released on May 28, 2003. QUESTION: But he wasn't aware of the report that they had delivered -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, I think what you'll -- you'll have to ask the international community what they looked at to put into that report. There's a briefing that was done for reporters on May 28th, and the intelligence community said that they were highly confident about these labs, these mobile labs being used for producing biological weapons. But let me -- you're going to the article in The Washington Post today, and, I mean, the article in the lead leaves readers with an impression that the President was saying something that had been debunked by the intelligence community. That is not true. That is irresponsible reporting. In fact, the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency had jointly assessed at the time that the labs were for producing biological weapons. And so I looked at these stories, I think it's -- this story -- it's nothing more than rehashing an old issue that was resolved long ago. The independent commission that we appointed determined that the intelligence on the biological weapons was wrong, and -- but in terms of the intelligence community, go look at the white paper, and then I've asked the intelligence community the basis for that. We're not an -- the White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency. QUESTION: Well, according to the Post article, Scott, according to the time line laid out there, you didn't have to wait for the independent commission, you had reports coming back that had been commissioned by the intelligence agencies almost immediately saying that's this was not the case. SCOTT McCLELLAN: Hang on a second, Bill. Hang on. I think the -- I think the CIA will tell you -- and I spoke to them earlier today -- that a finished product like this, a white paper like this, takes coordination, it takes debating, it takes vetting, and it's not something that they will tell you turns on a dime. It's a complex intelligence white paper and it's -- QUESTION: But the conclusion seems to be at 180 degrees to what was announced. SCOTT McCLELLAN: Hang on, hang on. Bill, hang on. Let me finish. You can ask your question after that, I'm not leaving -- one derived from highly classified information takes a substantial amount of time to coordinate and to run through a declassification process. And they will tell you this. And the intelligence comes in many different forms -- human intelligence, signals intelligence, open source -- and it's not a trickle, it's a constant flood, is what they told me this morning. And weighing and assessing it is something that takes a lot of time and is a technology-intensive process. So you're making an assumption that something is immediately taken and assessed by your comments. QUESTION: Well, of course, that is what they would say. That is what they always say. My point is this: If intelligence that is at 180 degrees variance from what was officially put out by the United States government is coming in, you would think that somebody might take notice and say, we better look at this and get this to the White House right away. SCOTT McCLELLAN: Well, the article says that was incorporated into the Iraq Survey Group. Again, I can tell you what the President made his comments based on. And I think this is just, frankly, reckless reporting. QUESTION: So the President was not aware of the fact -- QUESTION: -- President was so definitive -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: And I think it's reckless reporting for ABC to go this morning and say that The Washington Post says that the President knew at the time what he was saying was not true. QUESTION: So was the President made aware of the fact -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: And are you all going to apologize? QUESTION: Was the President made aware of the faxed field report? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Are you all going to apologize for that? QUESTION: Was the President aware of the faxed field report? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Is that a correct statement? QUESTION: Scott, was the President made aware of the field report that was faxed? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Jessica, I just told you, I've asked the intelligence community what they based this paper on. I can't tell you what they based their paper on. You have to. We're not an intelligence-gathering agency. QUESTION: No, but was the field report faxed -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President made his comments based on this white paper that was publicly released by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency, which is the arm of the -- which is an arm of the Pentagon -- QUESTION: -- President have access to material before it's declassified, so the question is, was he aware of this report on May 27th? SCOTT McCLELLAN: I just told you -- you shouldn't make any assumptions, but you should go and ask the intelligence community what was this based on. I can't tell you what they based that on. They're the intelligence-gathering agency. QUESTION: You can tell us if the President had this information. Did he have this information? SCOTT McCLELLAN: Jessica, this -- I just saw this report. I'll come back with more information if there is. But this is reckless reporting. And for you all to go on the air this morning and make such a charge is irresponsible. QUESTION: But the President spoke very definitively -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: And I hope that ABC would apologize for it and make a correction on the air. QUESTION: "We found" -- I'm quoting -- "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." That's what he said. He didn't say, "The evidence that's coming in suggests." He didn't say that. He said it definitively. SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, let me tell you -- here is the briefing from the CIA conference call they did with reporters: "We are highly confident that the coalition forces in Iraq have discovered a mobile biological production plant." That's from the intelligence community. This was a joint paper -- not just the CIA, but also the Defense Intelligence Agency. So it was their assessment at the time. And you all should go back and look at the time period, as well, and see what was said at that time period. This is rehashing an old issue, that's all it is. There were -- stories covered it at this time. I mean, The Washington Post, on the very day that the President was asked a question -- the President was responding to a question, first of all, when he was asked. The Washington Post, on that very day, was printing articles talking about this, and other papers, as well. QUESTION: But, Scott, given the fact that these questions are still lingering out there, isn't the President facing a credibility gap that has to deal with Iraq and other issues? SCOTT McCLELLAN: No, no, they are -- see, that's what's irresponsible about this lead in this article. That's not the case. In fact, this issue was resolved long ago, because we appointed an independent commission to look at all these issues, and it was determined that this was wrong. In the Iraq Survey Group -- David Kay led that -- this was incorporated into it, according to the article -- he's quoted in the article. And his report didn't come out until September, 2004. So put yourself in the context of the time period. QUESTION: But the commission did not really -- you did appoint the commission, but that has not put to rest, as you know, the questions in the United States and around the world about what the President knew and when he knew it -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: Sure it has. No, the commission actually talked about it; the Senate Intelligence Committee report talked about it; the British Butler Report spoke about those issues, as well. There's been -- and I talked about this the other day. This was an issue that came up the other day in the briefing, and I talked about how some people were making accusations, that were not based on any evidence or facts, to suggest that intelligence was being manipulated or misused or politicized, and that is false. And I talked about that the other day. QUESTION: But if those questions -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: In fact, go look at the independent commission that looked at this issue. A bipartisan independent commission looked at these issues, and what they pointed to was the intelligence was wrong. QUESTION: But if those questions have been put to rest, why is the President, almost on a weekly basis, still giving speeches trying to explain his case for war three years later, if those questions have really been put to rest? SCOTT McCLELLAN: I don't think -- no, we talked about -- we've talked about the reason for going into Iraq. That's not -- what the President is saying is that it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, given that he was a destabilizing force in the region, given that he was a sworn enemy of the United States. This was a brutal dictator that was repressing his people. The world is better off with Saddam Hussein removed from power. And I will take that argument on any day in this room, if people want to suggest that we are not better off with Saddam Hussein removed from power. The world is better off with him removed from power. Freedom is now advancing in the Middle East. We're making important progress. And by expanding freedom in the Middle East we are changing the status quo. The status quo in the Middle East is changing, and the status quo in the Middle East led to terrorists flying planes into buildings. It became a troubled region and a breeding ground for terrorism. And we made the -- the President made the determination after September 11th that we are not going to settle for the status quo. QUESTION: That hasn't stopped. SCOTT McCLELLAN: Of course, it hasn't, Bill. That's why we are waging a comprehensive war on terrorism and working to spread freedom and democracy to win this war on terrorism. This is an ideological struggle. And that's what the President has talked about at length. QUESTION: Would you clarify what's wrong with the article -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: I've got to go. I just said what -- the lead. I just did, repeatedly, Jessica. QUESTION: Which is that the President didn't know the information that is contained in that -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: You -- the lead -- I just said that the lead suggested that what the President was saying was based on something that had been debunked. And that is not true. In fact, the President was saying something that was based on what the intelligence community, through the CIA -- QUESTION: -- contradictory information out there. SCOTT McCLELLAN: -- and I'm trying to go gather information from the CIA to find out what went into that paper. They're going to have to say what went into that paper. That's what the President's statement was based on. And so, for ABC to go on there and suggest -- QUESTION: You're not denying -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: Hang on. Are you saying that the President went out there and said something that he knew was not true? That's what you said on ABC News -- QUESTION: I didn't say anything on ABC News -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: ABC News said that this morning. And is ABC News going to apologize for making that assertion? QUESTION: My question is, are you denying that there was -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: You haven't answered my question. Are you going to apologize for that? QUESTION: -- contradictory information -- SCOTT McCLELLAN: I just did, Jessica. I just answered that very question. QUESTION: I have one. Can I have one? SCOTT McCLELLAN: I'll be back later.
I lost count of how many times he said, "reckless reporting," and the like. Pretty sad stuff. Apparently, he fled, not being able to handle the questions. Poor, poor Scott. Somebody give him a popsicle. Keep D&D Civil.
I heard some of Scott McClellan's briefing and he's just making things worse by arguing that that the White House wasn't lying but didn't have the latest info. In other words they weren't lying they, the CIA and the DIA were incompent since they couldn't get the White House crucial information in a timely manner. I don't know what is worse. An incompetent Admin. or a lying Admin..
That's what I was referring too. His story always sounded a little fishy to me. It also seemed like he and "johnheath" may have been the same person.
By Joby Warrick Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, April 13, 2006; A18 The Bush administration yesterday denounced a Washington Post report that questioned the handling of postwar intelligence on alleged Iraqi biological weapons labs. A White House spokesman acknowledged that President Bush's assertions about the suspected labs were in error but said this was caused by flawed intelligence work rather than an effort to mislead. Bush press secretary Scott McClellan criticized the article as "reckless" for what he said was an "impression" that Bush had knowingly misled the American public about the two Iraqi trailers seized by U.S. and Kurdish fighters weeks after the Iraqi invasion began. On May 29, 2003, Bush described the trailers in a television interview as "biological laboratories" and said, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The Post reported yesterday that a Pentagon-appointed team of technical experts had strongly rejected the weapons claim in a field report sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency on May 27, 2003. That report, and an authoritative, 122-page final report by the same team three weeks later, concluded that the trailers were not biological weapons labs. Both reports were classified and never released. The team's findings were ultimately supported by the Iraq Survey Group, which led the official search for banned weapons, in a report to Congress in September 2004, about 15 months later. Whether White House officials were alerted to the technical team's finding is unclear, The Post article reported. In any case, senior administration and intelligence officials continued for months afterward to cite the trailers as evidence that Iraq had been producing weapons of mass destruction -- the chief claim used to justify the U.S.-led invasion. McClellan dismissed the news article as "rehashing an old issue," saying Bush has repeatedly acknowledged "the intelligence was wrong." The spokesman said Bush's comments on the trailers reflected the intelligence community's dominant view at the time. "The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency," he said. McClellan indicated he did not know when, or if, the White House was briefed on the technical team's report. And he declined to respond when asked if the technical team's report would be declassified and released. Prominent Democrats demanded yesterday that the report be immediately released. "Given that the president has been willing to declassify information for his own political purposes, he should declassify this report so the American people can know if they were misled," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "Was this incompetence, meaning that he did not know something that he clearly should have known, or is this an instance of dishonesty where information was misused or withheld to support a political agenda?" The White House sought to further rebut the Post article with a series of "Setting the Record Straight" statements e-mailed to reporters. In the statements, the White House does not deny the existence of the technical team's report but portrays it as a preliminary finding, contrasting that report with a public white paper put out by the CIA on May 28, 2003. The CIA paper described the trailers as the "strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." The White House provided a "link" to a CIA Web site where the white paper is still posted, nearly 18 months after its conclusions were refuted by the Iraq Survey Group. The White House statement also cites the 2005 Robb-Silberman commission report on intelligence failures related to Iraqi weapons. That report criticizes the intelligence agencies for "bureaucratic resistance to admitting error" as evidence showed Iraqi weapons claims to be unfounded. © 2006 The Washington Post Company
The Post reported yesterday that a Pentagon-appointed team of technical experts had strongly rejected the weapons claim in a field report sent to the Defense Intelligence Agency on May 27, 2003. That report, and an authoritative, 122-page final report by the same team three weeks later, concluded that the trailers were not biological weapons labs. Both reports were classified and never released. The team's findings were ultimately supported by the Iraq Survey Group, which led the official search for banned weapons, in a report to Congress in September 2004, about 15 months later. Whether White House officials were alerted to the technical team's finding is unclear, The Post article reported. In any case, senior administration and intelligence officials continued for months afterward to cite the trailers as evidence that Iraq had been producing weapons of mass destruction -- the chief claim used to justify the U.S.-led invasion. from Josh -- Here's another question on those bio-weapons mobile trailers that never were. When did the administration let Congress in on the fact that those mobile weapons labs weren't bio-weapons labs at all and that we'd just been conned by some emigres on the make? We're focusing now on the president's flogging of this bogus story shortly after the Defense Intelligence Agency gave a definitive verdict on the falsity of the claim. But when did they tell Congress? And how late did other administration heavies continue to make this claim? My recollection is that with most of these stories like the trailers and the tubes and the nuclear this and that, most of this stuff wasn't definitively knocked down for many, many months after the war. Like old soldiers these fables didn't die so much as they faded away. The certainty diminished. More doubts were raised. But for what always struck me as deeply cynical reasons, the White House never publicly pulled the plug on any of these tales because as long as they kept some level of uncertainty hanging in the air they didn't have to address the fact that the central argument for the war had turned out to be false. Hell, you've still got Hitchens publicly holding out for the Niger canard. And that's just an example of the fact that you can always find folks deep enough in the tank to churn out tall tales for the true believers to eat up. Anyway, when did the White House tell Congress that the mobile weapons story was bunk? A reader pointed me toward this portion of the congressional record from July 17th, 2003 in which Senators Durbin and McConnell discuss then heated WMD debate. They both discuss the mobile bio-weapons trailers with the assumption that that was what they were. And this was the day after then CIA Director George Tenet gave five hours of closed door Senate testimony on the WMD debacle. That certainly suggests that Tenet didn't knock down the mobile lab fable in that lengthy session dedicated to the topic of pre-war WMD intelligence. What does Durbin say? And how late were administration figures pushing the mobile bio-labs story? Here's what Vice President Cheney said to Juan Williams on January 24th 2004 ... Cheney's persistence in lying to the public about al Qaida and WMD claims is almost the stuff of legend. So even though the baldness of this lie still sort of grabs me, I can't say it's exactly shocking. But again, Congress. For how many months did the White House continue to tell the Congress that the mobile bio-weapons story was true even while they knew it was false? For months? Or was it more like a year? -- Josh Marshall
