Iraq-Niger? Bush says discussion is closed. Done with.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0sl=-30

I don't think it's over. It's all over the papers. I'm less cynical about Bush getting away with this kind of lying -- a critical mass seems to have been reached. The next moves one needs to watch (and get active in) are those being made in Congress by those who "want to get to the bottom of this intelligence 'failure' and make it clear the president was not at fault..." Pressure on Congress -- from all of us -- will make a big difference now.

It seems to me that, if it comes down to it, Mr Tenet (CIA) will end up taking the bullet.
My understanding is (and I'll admit I'm a neophyte when it comes to inside-the-beltway machinations) that the the State Dept (Mr Powell) and the Defense Dept (Mr Rumsfeld) are battling.
I wonder how long Mr Powell will hang around.

umjohnboy
Powell if he had even the slightest bit of integrity would have resigned his position over a year ago. All those stories about his character and intelligence must have been propaganda. He turned out to be the administrations running dog.

I can understand why they want this issue to be over. Few things have made Ari dance this badly:



Well, at least they got the spooks to take the fall.

that remains to be seen Craven, surely we have not heard the last of this dispite Ari's statement that the issue is done with.

I hope you're right, dys, but I think the asshole's gonna get away with this, too.

high hopes, we gotta have high hopes
following the current White House reasoning i suppose we can look forward to the Army taking the heat for not finding the WoMD.

The UK is trying to stick to the shoddy intel and they are now saying they have other information (that they did not disclose to the US) to support it.

I'm hoping their obdurate defense of their crappy intel helps keep this in the spotlight,

Well, the story's changing a bit - getting muddier rather than clearer. Apparently the WH had been advised months earlier that the Iraq-Niger info was seriously flawed, and was advised not to put it into an earlier speech made in October. So the knowledge was there. Also, Tenet says he is responsible for the approval process in the agency, which is not the same as saying he mis-advised the WH. Everybody's doing his best CYA act. Hard to tell, but it doesn't look like this story's going to do a fast disappearing act. Remember how hot the republicans were on the subject of lying? Always different when the shoe is on your own foot.

Here, from the Washington Post:


CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.
Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear

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 last 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 its own 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 last 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 2002. It was that same reference that the White House wanted to use in Bush's Oct. 7 speech 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 listed Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists," satellite photographs showing 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 was contained in the NIE and also included 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 still was 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.

Mamaj- do you seriously believe anyone's gonna do anything to shrub and his bunch, because of this?

Snood:

The American People can do something to him in 2004 if we can get the votes counted this time!

Anon

I live in hope. Besides, there seems to be a growing group of people who have become very disillusioned. My in-the-financial-world republican son-in-law told me some of the donating sources have said they've now donated what they're going to give. He's with one of the old names on the Street, and the president of the company recently did some democratic fund-raising. I believe in looking where the money goes. Those money people are never altruistic - they always want a return on investment.

But, like I said, I live in hope.

Anon - how the heck are you?

The more I keep reading about questions regarding who inserted the line into the Presidents State of the Union message, which speech writer. The more I realize how superfluous the president is. He is given speeches to read [which I doubt he understands]. Directions on policy and when not closely monitored puts his foot in his mouth. I expect he could be replaced by a parrot. At least a parrot would not choke on a pretzel.

This mornings newpaper reported that the presidents approval rating is starting to reflect his performasnce it is falling. We may be slow but thankfully we are not brain dead.

Was listening to an analysis of who-knew-what -- which included a glance or two at the revelation that the uranium issue had already been put to bed in October -- and I found myself hoping that Bush is about to suffer an "October surprise" as the last chips of teflon fall away.

Snood may very well be right... they've managed to slide off stuff before. But almost all the polls are beginning to show slippage in serious form - like public confidence, worries about the economy - where it starts to hit home.

So much will depend on what the democrats do with this, and how. Up until now, they've been afraid to move anywhere, more paralyzed by massaged polling than some ordinary people. But the lies! If they can play upon the lies, as the republicans did.

Also, the House may do them more harm than they think.

We'll see, but, as I said, I live in hope (which is better than always thinking the sky is falling). Also, I lived through Nixon, and tha was bad times.

Mamaj -- Remember that early on we KNEW about Nixon and Watergate and how LONG it seemed to take to put all the pieces together (what was the time span of "All the President's Men"?)? There is a big difference now: on the one hand a much less responsible mainstream media, and on the other the internet. Look at the speed and ease with which MoveOn (and similar groups) act and create coalitions. Look at the speed and ease with which Joe Trippi has turned the Dean campaign into a juggernaut (as compared to similar candidates in the past). I contend that we have the means at hand to turn all this into a Watergate and a speedier Watergate. But I'm not sure a lot of people have figured this out, or want to give up leisure time, or whatever it is which makes so many hang back and say, Maybe.... Maybe... But... As in the past, it's done by doing.