Quote:Representatives of widely disparate opposition groups, including political exiles, survivors of Saddam Hussein's internal wars and once-persecuted religious leaders, are expected to form the new Iraqi Governing Council this weekend, a significant first step in Iraq's long-term democratic reform.
from: agencies
Well, dys, it's bringing democracy to Iraq!
Long-term reform = loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong occupation
Ah I see, it's all so clear now that you mention it Walter, I'm just to slow to figure it all out.
If you put together the lengthing occupation of Iraq with the refusal of State to let American (and other) businesses (the ones which are not Halliburton etc. connected) get visas for Iraq, you kinda get the pitcha.
Stage managing the occupation is rather more difficult than stage managing the war - the spiffy weapons and edge-of-seat hero stories disappearing from the PR boys' quivers. And the growing awareness (we see it on the site here too) that these guys lied big for convenience is giving Rove's team a problem. They'll want the attention to shift elsewhere. Liberia/Africa is a pretty obvious and facile attempt to garner the black vote (and it's all fairly repugnant given the US's complicity in supporting men like Taylor in Liberia) but there's no real drama in this adventure and lots of political risk if more than that one scenic helicopter full of soldiers attends.
So I'm looking for Rove to come up with some attention-concentrating, black and white issue which paints Bush as everything he isn't and the Dems in some negative light.
Gels, What's your mailing address? c.i.
The 'blame CIA' strategy is having a serious consequence in England where it has undercut the defence Blair and Straw have been mounting...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,997250,00.html
If GWBush ends up ruining the US relationship with our best ally, I wonder what adjective would be proper for GWBush in the history books? c.i.
Tony Blair made "a fundamental mistake" in claiming that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, says Hans Blix, former head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq.
see article in:
The Independent on Sunday
On the above link provided by Walter, the 20 lies. (Thus far, I imagine.)
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=424008
a
George says 'case closed on uranium deal'!!!
I don't think so.
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A01
CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech in October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.
Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged.
The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by the CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.
It is unclear why Tenet failed to intervene in January to prevent the questionable intelligence from appearing in the president's address to Congress when Tenet had intervened three months earlier in a much less symbolic speech. That failure may underlie his action Friday in taking responsibility for not stepping in again to question the reference. "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency," he said in Friday's statement.
As Bush left Africa yesterday to return to Washington from a five-day trip overshadowed by the intelligence blunder, he was asked whether he considered the matter over. "I do," he replied. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that "the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well."
But it is clear from the new disclosure about Tenet's intervention in October that the controversy continues to boil, and as new facts emerge a different picture is being presented than the administration has given to date.
Details about the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy as much as 500 tons of uranium oxide were contained in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that was concluded in late September. It was that allegation that the White House wanted to use in Bush's Oct. 7 speech and that Tenet blocked, the sources said. That same intelligence report was the basis for the 16-word sentence about Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Africa that was contained in the January State of the Union address that has drawn recent attention.
Administration sources said White House officials, particularly those in the office of Vice President Cheney, insisted on including Hussein's quest for a nuclear weapon as a prominent part of their public case for war in Iraq. Cheney had made the potential threat of Hussein having a nuclear weapon a central theme of his August 2002 speeches that began the public buildup toward war with Baghdad.
In the Oct. 7 Cincinnati speech, the president for the first time outlined in detail the threat Hussein posed to the United States on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing war. Bush talked in part about "evidence" indicating that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The president cited Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists," satellite photographs showing that former nuclear facilities were being rebuilt, and Iraq's attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for use in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.
There was, however, no mention of Niger or even attempts to purchase uranium from other African countries, which were contained in the NIE and also in a British intelligence dossier that had been published a month earlier.
By January, when conversations took place with CIA personnel over what could be in the president's State of the Union speech, White House officials again sought to use the Niger reference since it was still in the NIE.
"We followed the NIE and hoped there was more intelligence to support it," a senior administration official said yesterday. When told there was nothing new, White House officials backed off, and as a result "seeking uranium from Niger was never in drafts," he said.
Tenet raised no personal objection to the ultimate inclusion of the sentence, attributed to Britain, about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. His statement on Friday said he should have. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," the CIA director said.
Bush said in Abuja, Nigeria, yesterday that he continues to have faith in Tenet. "I do, absolutely," he said. "I've got confidence in George Tenet; I've got confidence in the men and women who work at the CIA."
There is still much that remains unclear about who specifically wanted the information inserted in the State of the Union speech, or why repeated concerns about the allegations were ignored.
"The information was available within the system that should have caught this kind of big mistake," a former Bush administration official said. "The question is how the management of the system, and the process that supported it, allowed this kind of misinformation to be used and embarrass the president."
Senior Bush aides said they do not believe they have a communication problem within the White House that prevented them from acting on any of the misgivings about the information that were being expressed at lower levels of the government.
"I'm sure there will have to be some retracing of steps, and that's what's happening," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "The mechanical process, we think is fine. Will more people now give more, tighter scrutiny going forward? Of course."
A senior administration official said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, does not remember who wrote the line that has wound up causing the White House so much grief.
Officials said three speechwriters were at the core of the State of the Union team, and that they worked from evidence against Iraq provided by the National Security Council. NSC officials dealt with the CIA both in gathering material for the speech and later in vetting the drafts.
Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussein, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq's intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had raised those questions two weeks before the State of the Union address, saying Hussein claimed nonnuclear intentions for the tubes. In March, the IAEA said it found Hussein's claim credible, and could all but rule out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program.
Staff writer Dana Milbank contributed to this report from Nigeria.
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
George is indulging in wishful thinking. There has been a reigning smugness -- and hubris -- among Republicans thanks to which "we're right and we're winning" carries them away. Away from reality, for the most part. For starters, I don't know if they even partially see the anger which they can take responsibility for engendering in the opposition, an opposition which is now out for blood. The wounds which Bush is suffering now may seem small, but they will be chum for the rest of the critters in this bywater.
the single over-riding objective of all members of congress is to get re-elected. if there develops a perception that the voters smell a rat in the white house the tide will turn out of self interest.
Dys -- I think we (opposition) need to implicate Congress in the war and the lies. Otherwise they'll get away with say, They lied to us, too. They had access to the reports and still voted for war. That needs to be said.
Well said Tartarin.
Our sitting Congress is the most "wimpish" yet. Only a few spoke out softly, until they were embarassed into thinking it was not politically correct.
Tartar, I thought the same thing, but I still must base my trust on Diane Feinstein who communicated why she voted for the war with Iraq. I do not believe Congresswoman Feinstein would intentionally lie to her constituents, nor vote for anything that is not based on some truths. I think there's a danger in using a large brush to paint the whole of our representatives in Congress. I still trust Congresswoman Feinstein as my representative in Congress. c.i.
I don't think Feinstein had access to the House Intelligence Committee's full input of intelligence.. whaddya bet, CI!
Not meaning to paint them all with one brush, CI-
Just summarizing the whole... weak.
Diane Feinstein is on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/members.htm c.i.
