Either way, it's not an innocent mistake. From The American Heritage College Dictionary: fudge 1. To fake or falsify. 2. To evade (an issue, for example); dodge. To act dishonestly; cheat. lie 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to decieve or give a wrong impression.
This story puts the truth in the White House, though the title is a misleading... He either lied or is a captive of his advisors. _____________ Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False WASHINGTON, July 10, 2003 Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA. Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin. CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa. The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered. “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said. The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true. Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake. “There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell. But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa. “I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said. That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union. The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice. Secretary Powell said today he read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered and understood it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community. But intelligence officials say the director of the CIA never saw the final draft.
"But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned <b>might not</b> be true." Emphasis mine.
Did the CIA mention that the report "might not be true"? I thought that they rejected the documents. Who was the reporter for this article rimrocker?
That would sure be the time to do it! A decision was made to go with it. They are not going to vacilate about the validity of the report in The State of the Union Address. Have you looked at the State of the Union address lately? Here is the last part with my emphasis... "... Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. <b>To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction</b>. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. <b>The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. </b> The <b>United Nations concluded in 1999</b> that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. <b>The United Nations concluded</b> that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. <b>He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.</b> <b>Our intelligence officials</b> estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. <b>He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. </b> <b>U.S. intelligence indicates</b> that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. <b>From three Iraqi defectors</b> we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. <b>He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.</b> <b>The International Atomic Energy Agency</b> confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. <b>The British government</b> has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? <b>The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. (my note--- he doesn't mention the U.S. in peril)</b> With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, <b>he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. </b> Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. <b>Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) </b> Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? <b>If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) (my note-- Bush doesn't comment on the imminence at all-- just the opposite)</b> The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. <b>International human rights groups</b> have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.) <b>And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) (my comment-- Operation Iraqi Freedom!)</b> The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept <b>a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies</b>. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of <b>Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world</b>. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.) Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you. (Applause.) Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come. We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail. (Applause.) And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies -- and freedom. (Applause.) Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril; from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world and to ourselves. America is a strong nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. <b>We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. </b> Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. (Applause.) We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not know -- we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 10:08 P.M. EST
giddyup, rimrocker, I didn't read carefully earlier (b/c my head has been killing me for a week and I should honestly be studying for something else ) this is so damning that it's ridiculous. It's actually been brought up before, if memory serves, that the CIA in the midst of reviewing much of this material wasn't going to bat for the administration on a few things. Something seemed to change during the rush up to war from the agency, but it's interesting to see that the CIA knows they can substitute a Y for an I... If the Kids on Big Wheels honestly chose the route of "technically accurate" then they were being completely dishonest. Call it a lie, call it a perjury, hang Clinton, hang Bush... I don't give a damn. To rely on semantics and to willingly trick the American people into fearing Iraq was going to acquire nuclear weapons... Heads had better roll over this.
Giddy...you are not exactly objective with regards to what you do and do not highlight, the comments you make, and the conclusions at which you arrive. Allow me to demonstrate: Forgetting for a moment the fact that, in the midst of a discussion regarding the honesty or lack thereof on the part of the administration, you felt the need to highlight all kinds of anti-Saddam statemtns, as though they were relevant, let's concentrate on what is relevant; " Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. " Note that we are citing Saddam's failure to account for our intel as a reason for war. Not that he is failing to account for what is proven...but for what our intel, about which we are all now familiar, especially regarding the gathering process, has 'proven'...so we were saying then that when he doesn't show that he has destroyed what our intel says he has, that is proof that he's lying, and we should attack. "U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them. " Same deal here... "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " ...are we seeing a trend? We know that they overlooked intel which contradicted this. We know that that was a pattern. He is choosing intel as it suits him, and then connecting the proverbial dots...there is no other reason to do this but to manipulate. Note that this is the punch...speech-makers know that you leave your best and most dramatic support for just before you make your conclusion...which he does with the very next sentence. "Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. (my note--- he doesn't mention the U.S. in peril) " Note on your note...not here...but he does throughout the speech. You should know, you highlited much of it. Like here... " And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. " and here... "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. " and here... "The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies." "And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.) (my comment-- Operation Iraqi Freedom!) " Interesting conclusion to arrive at, in the very same speech where he clearly defines the one and only reason for the imminent war: "But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. " I agree that he suggests that Iraqi Freedom! would be an additional benefit of the war, but he clearly states that the reason for the war is disarmament, and the means for Saddam to avoid the war is for him to fully disarm. Giddy, you are being very selective in how you are interpreting this. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option...(my note-- Bush doesn't comment on the imminence at all-- just the opposite) " Totally disagree here, giddy. He is stating that the threat is imminent. He is making a distinction between 'imminent' and 'apparent', by stating that the kind of threat Saddam represents...the "terrorist" kind...don't provide any warning. He is refuting the argument that the threat is not imminent, ergo, he is saying it is imminent.
So Tenet will be the fall guy... but is this really over? Sorry I quoted this again, but this text is very important. The White House officials (NSC) conspired with the CIA to misinform the public by using semantics, "well... it is factually accurate.... it is in British intelligence reports. It's just not accurate that Iraq tried to acquire information from Niger. Where's the confusion? Oh you thought we meant that we believed it? Oh no, we were just talking about British intelligence documents". What was the purpose of keeping this in the SOTU address, if not to get the American public to back the war? Who were these officials? It wasn't the CIA doing the arm twisting in that room... (sure they were the pansies that took away their objections, but they weren't the group committing the most heinous of acts by any measure). Somebody in the White House intentionally sought to mislead the American public.
All I was wanting to point out was that Bush cited at least 5 sources of intelligence which all indicate weapons of mass destruction in Saddam's aresenal, that he didn't say that a devastating attack on America was imminent, and that Saddam's reckoning would be for standing in defiance to the world. We have to consider what was likely known in January of 2003 versus advanced intel available in July of 2003. That is six months of further intel gathering-- including more than a month of pretty freely roaming around Baghdad.
They're going to lay it all on Tenet now. Freakin hysterical... the old dog at my homework excuse for fighting full scale wars.
Statement by George J. Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence: Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. For perspective, a little history is in order. There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien (sic) officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all. Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said. In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story. Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document. In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting. In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them. But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure "uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003. The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake. Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct – i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
Some of the language was changed. Our intel could not back the Nigerian yellowcake statement, since they thought it was apocryphal. Undaunted, the Bush speech writers "spun" the statement to source the information from British intel instead. IMO, the CIA should not have had to vet the statement again. The Bush Admin knew the statement was false and should not have tried to get it into the State of the Union speech via spinning through a backdoor. This is clearly a deception on their part and very unbecoming of their office. BTW, Bush Considers Iraq Uranium Issue Closed.
Recently released documents indicate that the invasion of Iraq was long in the planning. A 1992 Defense Policy Guidance paper drafted by Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense for policy under President Bush the elder, called for a preemptive strike against Iraq. The stated reason - to avert the spread of destructive weapons and to ensure "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil." But nothing about an imminent threat from an Iraq defeated and disarmed in the Gulf War only a year earlier. Sept. 11 provided momentum for an attack on Iraq, although no connection between the terrorist acts and the Saddam Hussein government has ever been convincingly established. According to Bob Woodward's book, "Bush At War," at a meeting of the war cabinet four days after Sept. 11, Mr. Wolfowitz pushed for an assault on Iraq rather than Afghanistan because it would be easier. But not as easy as Wolfowitz hoped. And now, the continuing and escalating guerrilla war against US troops has raised the question of whether the administration took America into the war under false pretenses, with selective use of ambiguous intelligence. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0711/p11s02-cojh.html
