WP: CIA Got Uranium Mention Cut in Oct.

[phishhead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb

CIA Got Uranium Mention Cut in Oct.

Why Bush Used 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 nuclear materials 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 to make Iraq's nuclear capabilities a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to undermine President Bush's forceful effort on Friday to blame the CIA for inclusion of the faulty allegations because the agency ultimately signed off on the State of the Union speech.

It is unclear why Tenet personally intervened to prevent the questionable intelligence about Niger from appearing in an earlier presidential speech but did not do so again for the far more symbolic speech three months later. 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 if 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 effort to intervene 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 up to 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 a 16-word sentence in the January State of the Union address that has drawn recent attention.

Administration sources said White House officials, particularly 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 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 episode 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 information's ultimate inclusion, though 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 tried to insert the information into 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 non-nuclear 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.

[Guest SkinsHokie Fan]

Uh oh the sky is falling

[Johnny Punani2]

I remember a Washington Post article about a joint Russian/American operation to remove weapons grade Uranium from a power plant in the former Yugoslavia. It also mentioned that several rogue countries expressed interest in buying that material including Iraq.

[RiggoDrill]

Jeez ... how could the CIA fail in its primary duty, namely to edit presidential speeches?

After all, the Commander In Chief can't be expected to analyze and evaluate critical intelligence information before making an empassioned appeal to send the country to war?

What a failure!! It was Tenet's job to babysit the president, and he failed!

[Burgold]

There is something in this article that makes me feel there was a deliberate decision to use this info. regardless of its verasity. I mean how could it be spotted in October and edited, yet later neither the speechwriters who were earlier corrected, the intelligence screeners who previously caught it, or the President become suddenly unaware. It is difficult for me to believe that all these players would suddenly forget about this since they already to took the pains for the top guy to personally argue for its removal once.

[NavyDave]

What is the big deal?

The brits arent backing down on the info they put out and more than likely its true.

Here is the deal of what more than likely happened.

Niger was a colony of France, the french had info about Iraq's interest in gettin uranium shared the info with Britain on the condition that they arent named the source (to the US) of the info (similar to a reporter not giving up his sources).

The US doesnt and shouldnt go on info from unnamed sources from a foreign entity but with britain being a close ally did so because they felt they could trust them.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think it was alittle of both. The CIA would of stood up and said "this is a bad idea" and the White House could of said "Why was this rejected before but not now?"

The White House found their fall guy to take the blame....then the ever caring President can turn around and still say he supports the guy.......because he took the blame.

[codeorama]

My problem is that bush lied to Americans on national tv. Then, Tenant takes the blame saying his dept should have caught the error. Now, it looks as if Tenant is doing nothing more than becoming the "fall guy".

If this isn't obvious to the bush supporters, then I don't know what to say.

It's wrong for one guy to lie about a bj, but it's ok for another guy to lie about the reasons for war, IE: deaths of Americans, Deaths of civilians etc...

On the surface here, there is a warped sense of right and wrong.

[Funkyalligator]

Bush got Tenet to fall on his sword so to speak

[codeorama]

Ollie North v2.0

[Kilmer17]

Code, he did not lie. The left and the elite liberal media keep harping on it, but there is a difference between a lie and a mistake.

If you are claiming Bush KNEW that the evidence was bogus (and Im still not sure it is) then present that case.

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Code, he did not lie. The left and the elite liberal media keep harping on it, but there is a difference between a lie and a mistake.

If you are claiming Bush KNEW that the evidence was bogus (and Im still not sure it is) then present that case.

Whether bush knew the evidence was bogus or not, I don't know, but he is surely to blame for presenting "evidence" that was bogus... he was the messenger. He's not taking responsibility, he's letting a fall guy go down for him, AND, he's not even letting the fall guy go down, now we are supposed to feel good that he fessed up....

Crap, utter crap. Put these exact same circumstances into place with clinton at the helm and all hell breaks loose with the right.

Going to war is probably one of the most serious issues a president has to make, and bush can't even use factual information??

You can believe 1 of 2 things, bush is a moron or bush is a liar....

[Kilmer17]

He HAS taken responsiblity. He came out right away and said so.

"Going to war is probably one of the most serious issues a president has to make, and bush can't even use factual information??"

He used the info he believed to be true. Info that the CIA okayed. Do you think he should go out and verify everything on his own?

I believe neither of your assertions. I believe that Bush trusted his advisors and the CIA.

But I'll ask this again. Was this SOLE piece of evidence the SOLE reason we went to war? Was this the SOLE reason that Copngress approved it? This would be a non-issue if the Dems and the elite lib media werent deperate to find any morsel to attack the Pres on. I dont blame them, but I do see the motivation.

As for calling Tenet the fallguy or scapegoat, that's the Dems and Media doing. Bush has stated over and over that he believes in Tenet and trusts him going forward.

The left asks what went wrong, Bush told them, now they claim he's trying to shift the blame. It's a bunch of crap.

[phishhead]

Originally posted by codeorama

You can believe 1 of 2 things, bush is a moron or bush is a liar....

I'll believe both, thanks.

[phishhead]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

Info that the CIA okayed. Do you think he should go out and verify everything on his own?

The CIA didn't "OK" the info back in October of 2002. Why would they "OK" it in January 2003? Hmmmm. Any ideas? Maybe the administration just didn't care what the CIA thought? Nobody knows, thats why there should be a public investigation into it.

[Kilmer17]

There is one. Conducted by both houses of Congress.

And the CIA DID approve the final draft of the SOTU.

Furthermore, the evidence was originally obtained through British sources. Only after the fact did the "bogus" document emerge to back the claims. So while the report may have been fake, the fact may be true. The Brits are still standing by it.

[codeorama]

Kilmer, if the CIA ok'ed the info, then what is this thread and the article within implying?

[Kilmer17]

That they didnt approve in in October.

Things change. Maybe more evidence was brought forward.

[Funkyalligator]

I'm sure the CIA didn't okay the info.....Bush got Tenet to take the blame because he couldn't very well have Chaney or any of his advisorsbe blamed because that would reflect upon himself. Bush just read what his handlers gave him to read..nothing more nothing less....he didn't lie he just read a speech with misleading information supplied by his crackhead advisors

[Larry]

On the "he lied" subject:

I think it's a fairly safe bet that nobody (on this forum or elsewhere) can prove that Saddam never tried to purchase Uranium. I don't think anybody's claim absolute proof that "The" statement was provably false.

What they are saying, is that Bush was in posession of a lot of intelligence, which was often contradictory. (In "The" case, he had a Brittish report saying one thing, a report saying the Brittish report was based solely on a forgery, and a report from the man we sent down to check on the information, who said he couldn't find anything to confirm the report.) He chose to report the one piece of intel which supported the position he was lobbying for, and chose not to mention the two pieces of intel that argued against his position. (In fact, when the CIA told him they suspected the claim was false, the White House's fallback position was "can I use this questionable evidence to support my case, if I claim it came from somewhere else?")

Now, did he make a statement which can be proven to be false? Nobody's saying so. (And, frankly, proving it false is impossible to begin with.)

Did he selectively filter the intelligence at his disposal, leaving in information which he'd been told was of dubious reliability, (but it supported what he wanted to do), while failing to mention other information that implied the first piece might be untrue? Anybody out there honestly think he didn't?

I suppose, to the Bushies, it all depends on what your definition of "lieing" is.

[Kilmer17]

I define lying as "A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood."

Key word is deliberate.

Funky, if you are so sure, please prove it. The facts say otherwise. Tenet has admitted that the CIA approved the final SOTU speech. BUsh has taken the blame, but the Libs wont hear of it. They DEMAND to know how it happened, so the WH tells what happened and NOW LOW AND BEHOLD, they are trying to make Tenet the fallguy. EXCREMENT!!!

If the left doesnt want to know what happened, why even ask.

[codeorama]

Is that similar to how the right spent billions of our taxdollars finding out the truth about a bj?

[Funkyalligator]

Kilmer17 you seem to lover harping on the left...do you consider me on the left just because I don't like Bush......There is no way to prove one way or another unless all the documentation is released that relates to this and I'm sure most of it is classified.... frankly I don't care who says what about whom....this whole thing is stupid and waste of time and money for anyone covering it........

[Kilmer17]

Another lie Code. The money was spent to investigate the Clintons illegal dealings. In the course of that investigation Clinton was asked about his involvement with Monica and (under oath) perjured himself. IFhe had admitted the affair, the investigation into their illegal activities would have continued anyway. Monica wasn't the single scope of the investigation. Just the juiciest.

[Kilmer17]

I harp on the left Funky because they are a threat to our society. Whether it's the insane Political Correctness, the anti-religious stances, the socialist agenda, the antiwar stances etc. I consider their beliefs to be dangerous.

I also dont see them offer any solutions of their own, rather they only offer that the other side is always wrong.

Your opposition to Bush can fall into the latter category. Do you hate EVERYTHING that he does and stands for? And if not, what do you agree with and what do you suggest as an alternative to the things you disagree with?l