I'm only musing, but I hope my gut feeling about GWBush lasting and David Letterman lasting is trying to compare apples and oranges - PLEASE! c.i.
So far we have 3 national leaders all claiming that intelligence was not passed on to them.
The lies get more putrid by the minute.
Here's a nice little piece from the Bergen Record (NJ) by an AP writer, that clearly shows the WH now taking spin in a new direction - spinning round and round............
Saturday, July 19, 2003
By TOM RAUM
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON - The White House released excerpts from a classified October 2002 intelligence document on Friday to demonstrate how flawed intelligence on Iraq's nuclear-weapons ambitions wound up in President Bush's State of the Union address.
The document cites "compelling evidence" of such a program - but it also reflects prewar divisions within the U.S. intelligence community, including a State Department dismissal of reports that Saddam Hussein was shopping for uranium ore in Africa as "highly dubious."
"We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] program," the CIA and other intelligence agencies concluded, according to the documents.
The Bush administration released the material - a sanitized version of the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate prepared for the president - as it sought to shield Bush from rising criticism that he misled the public in making his case for war with Iraq in his Jan. 28 speech.
Administration aides suggested that the eight pages of excerpts, out of 90 in the document, demonstrate that the notion that Iraq was trying to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program permeated the U.S. intelligence community - and was not just based on a suspect British intelligence report that relied in part on forged documents.
What do you suppose this says? "Compelling evidence?" "Lack specific information?" "To shield Bush from rising criticism?"
Also, what is the National Intelligence Estimate? I looked it up and I'm still not clear. Is it official? Quasi? What is its importance?
I've never been able to take Letterman either. Never seen his appeal.
Bush's 45 minute attack claim discredited
washingtonpost.com - Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A01
White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes
Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer
(Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.)
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.
The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."
The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.
The White House embraced the claim, from a British dossier on Iraq, at the same time it began to promote the dossier's disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
Bush administration officials last week said the CIA was not consulted about the claim. A senior White House official did not dispute that account, saying presidential remarks such as radio addresses are typically "circulated at the staff level" within the White House only.
Virtually all of the focus on whether Bush exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons ambitions has been on the credibility of a claim he made in the Jan. 28 State of the Union address about efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But an examination of other presidential remarks, which received little if any scrutiny by intelligence agencies, indicates Bush made more broad accusations on other intelligence matters related to Iraq.
For example, the same Rose Garden speech and Sept. 28 radio address that mentioned the 45-minute accusation also included blunt assertions by Bush that "there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." This claim was highly disputed among intelligence experts; a group called Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who could have been in Iraq, were both believed to have al Qaeda contacts but were not themselves part of al Qaeda.
Bush was more qualified in his major Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati, mentioning al Qaeda members who got training and medical treatment from Iraq. The State of the Union address was also more hedged about whether al Qaeda members were in Iraq, saying "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
Bush did not mention Iraq in his radio address yesterday. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), delivering the Democratic radio address, suggested that the dispute over the uranium claim in the State of the Union "is about whether administration officials made a conscious and very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat that Iraq posed to America." Levin said there is evidence the uranium claim "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the intelligence community and administration officials in the buildup to the war."
The 45-minute accusation is particularly noteworthy because of the furor it has caused in Britain, where the charge originated. A parliamentary inquiry determined earlier this month that the claim "did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The inquiry also concluded that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established."
As it turns out, the 45-minute charge was not true; though forbidden weapons may yet be found in Iraq, an adviser to the Bush administration on arms issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short notice.
The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.
"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."
The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly.
Using the single-source British accusation appears to have violated the administration's own standard. In a briefing for reporters on Friday, a senior administration official, discussing the decision to remove from the Cincinnati speech an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, said CIA Director George J. Tenet told the White House that "for a presidential speech, the standard ought to be higher than just relying upon one source. Oftentimes, a lot of these things that are embodied in this document are based on multiple sources. And in this case, that was a single source being cited, and he felt that that was not appropriate."
The British parliamentary inquiry reported this month that the claim came from one source, and "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq's military capability over time. Neither are we aware that there was any corroborating evidence from allies through the intelligence-sharing machinery. It is also significant that the US did not refer to the claim publicly." The report said the investigators "have not seen a satisfactory answer" to why the government gave the claim such visibility.
(And then there were the missiles which didn't have the range to do us or Israel any harm...)
I remember feeling chilled to the bone by the apparent passivity of Bush & Co. during the last moments of the 2000 campaign as though they knew they had it in the bag.
I remember feeling chilled again during the 2002 congressional elections by the same perception -- as though they had some special knowledge that they were going to succeed.
And I'm feeling the same chill right now as I watch a WH not dealing with all -- hey, not ANY! -- of the questions -- as though they know that, no matter what happens, the fix is in.
A new book is out titled the "Pinocchio Syndrome" by David Zeman. It has nothing to do with GWBush, because it's a novel, but the critic who wrote a article in our local newspaper claims it's "easily the most inventive and controversial political thriller I've ever read."
c.i.
The lies and distortions that the Bush and Blair administrations have put forward as justification for a war that was at its foundation an exercise in empire building have begun to destroy both careers and lives. This is beyond the lives destroyed in the war they initiated with these lies and distortions. With Blair there is at least the option of removing him by a Parliamentary vote of no confidence. Bush by contrast holds power by virtue of a stolen election and a four year term of office. We a stuck with him and the damage he and his cohorts can wreak for at least the next 18 months.
Tartarin wrote:(And then there were the missiles which didn't have the range to do us or Israel any harm...)
I remember feeling chilled to the bone by the apparent passivity of Bush & Co. during the last moments of the 2000 campaign as though they knew they had it in the bag.
I remember feeling chilled again during the 2002 congressional elections by the same perception -- as though they had some special knowledge that they were going to succeed.
And I'm feeling the same chill right now as I watch a WH not dealing with all -- hey, not ANY! -- of the questions -- as though they know that, no matter what happens, the fix is in.
...this feeling of dread (which I share) is not helped at all by the realization that this is possibly the most secretive administration ever.
Possibly? There was another?
Bush Adm. Stephen Hadley admits responsibility for 16 words
On July 17th, BBB wrote opening this thread: "Who is the Bush Administration Official the CIA's George Tenet revealed?
Remember these names: Robert G. Joseph and Stephen Hadley, members of Bush's National Security Council."
The Bush Administration, taking advantage of the news of the death of Saddam's two sons as cover, announced that Stephen Hadley and his boss, Condoleeza Rice, were taking responsiblity for the inclusion of the notorious 16 words in Bush's State of the Union speech.
Bush is hoping with this timing that the Saddam sons death news will divert media attention away from this admission.
---BumbleBeeBoogie
They're more stupid than I ever thought. c.i.
My bumper sticker for this evening, accordingly, will be:
BUSH DID IT, BLAMES CONDI.
Hope Rove got Bush some fancing dancing shoes, and dancing lessons, because that heavy-footed clog is beginning to weigh a little heavy. Lordy, this admin is kept busy looking for names to pin their misdeeds on.
They're running out of "who donnit." c.i.
The Bushies are corrupt, not stupid
The Boston Globe article says Stephen Hadley stated behind closed doors that he'd never read the speach.
Don't forget what Tenet said, or was reported that he said: An Administration official INSISTED that the 16 words be in Bush's speech.
"Who is the Bush Administration Official the CIA's George Tenet revealed?
Robert G. Joseph, a member of Bush's National Security Council.
Why hasn't Robert Joseph admitted that he is the one whom Tenet stated did the insisting? I think Hadley's confession is merely an attempted road block to reaching who insisted all the way to the top of the chain of command. We know that Bush ordered Condi Rice to put a stop to the issue. So Hadley was sacrificed to protect those further up the chain.
The Bushies must hope that the Media will forget Joseph following Hadley's confession and will also forget that both of these men work for Condi Rice.
The Bushies were very smart. They had Hadley confess immediately after the news of the killing of Saddam's sons because they knew the topic would be overshaddowed by the war news. But a confession under cover is still a confession and the Media and we should not forget it.
---BumbleBeeBoogie
BBB, This administration continues to develop subterfuge to confuse the American public, and in most cases it's working, because their performance rating is still high for these dangerous criminals. Go figure. c.i.
Bush is trying to protect Condi Rice, to whom he is VERY close: "Hadley said he had received two CIA memos challenging the British information last October, but forgot about them when he reviewed Bush's speech three months later. Rice also had been told of the CIA's concerns.
Rice apologized for her lapse through her deputy, but left it to Hadley to face reporters.
"I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy," a contrite Hadley said. "I failed in that responsibility."
---BumbleBeeBoogie
----------------------------------
Posted on Tue, Jul. 22, 2003
Bush's critics still vocal despite major win in Iraq
By Ron Hutcheson and James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons Tuesday gave President Bush a rare break from mounting U.S. casualties and growing doubts about his rationale for war, but didn't silence his critics or solve his problems in Iraq.
Bush's critics haven't questioned whether the U.S. military could kill Iraqis; rather, they have accused the president of distorting evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to America and its interests, one requiring a pre-emptive war to eliminate. Critics also have called for Bush to seek more help from allies in policing postwar Iraq rather than having U.S. troops shoulder so much of the load.
The deaths of Saddam's sons are unlikely to silence the president's critics on either point unless Iraqi resistance to the American occupation ends with Odai and Qusai Hussein. And even Bush's supporters cautioned that the sons' demise is unlikely to end Iraqi attacks on U.S. troops or resistance to the occupation.
"We have to have some patience," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. "People should be cheered, but this is not a short run, but a long run."
Democratic critics of the president's Iraq policy acknowledged the deaths of Saddam's sons as a welcome development, but tempered their praise for American troops by continuing to criticize the administration's occupation of Iraq.
"No one can underestimate the value of the developments today," said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. "But I would simply say that what many of us have said from the beginning is that in order to win the peace, we need more help. We need more resources, we need more personnel, we need more international involvement. This doesn't change that."
Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of the Bush administration's most persistent critics on Iraq, said the deaths didn't end the danger American troops were facing.
"If they're any inspiration to the guerrillas, I'm glad they're gone," Durbin said. "The sad reality is that our troops are still in a dangerous situation. We can expect, unfortunately, more bad news."
White House officials have become increasingly concerned that public unease about problems in postwar Iraq could hurt Bush's prospects for re-election, and indeed, his approval ratings in polls have slipped.
In a series of meetings Tuesday on Capitol Hill, L. Paul Bremer, the top U.S. official in Iraq, sought to reassure lawmakers that the rebuilding effort is on track. His visit came a day after White House communications director Dan Bartlett urged Republican lawmakers to defend the president's record.
Bush monitored the developments in Mosul, where Saddam's sons were killed, in a series of telephone calls from Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, but didn't offer any public reaction to their deaths. Because of earlier inaccurate reports of Saddam's demise, White House officials reacted cautiously and relied on the Pentagon to confirm the deaths of his sons.
At the very moment that Pentagon officials were confirming the deaths, White House officials were preparing yet another briefing to explain Bush's use of flawed intelligence in January's State of the Union address.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, joined CIA director George Tenet in taking the blame for Bush's statement that Iraq had shopped in Africa for uranium that could be used in a nuclear bomb. Administration officials concede that the assertion, which the president attributed to British intelligence sources, was questionable and shouldn't have been used as a reason for war.
Hadley said he had received two CIA memos challenging the British information last October, but forgot about them when he reviewed Bush's speech three months later. Rice also had been told of the CIA's concerns.
Rice apologized for her lapse through her deputy, but left it to Hadley to face reporters.
"I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy," a contrite Hadley said. "I failed in that responsibility."
That number, 500 tons, sounds awfully familiar! c.i.
