WP: President Bush defending his "darn good" intelligence

[phishhead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56336-2003Jul14.html

By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01

President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.

Bush said the CIA's doubts about the charge -- that Iraq sought to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore in Africa -- were "subsequent" to the Jan. 28 State of the Union speech in which Bush made the allegation. Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.

The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements. The matter has become increasingly charged, as Democrats demand hearings about Bush's broader use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

The president's remarks yesterday came as evidence emerged that the administration had information that seemed to guarantee that Iraq probably could not acquire nuclear material from Niger. A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House.

A spokesman for Myers said last night that the general has "no recollection of the information" but did not doubt that it had been forwarded to him. "Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects," said Capt. Frank Thorp, the chairman's spokesman.

In an interview, Fulford said he came away "assured" that the supply of "yellowcake" was kept secure by a French consortium. Both Fulford, then deputy commander of the U.S. European Command and his commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, said the issue did not surface again, although they were both routinely briefed on weapons proliferation in Africa. "I was convinced it was not an issue," Fulford said.

Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.

Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.

The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged. Before an October 2002 speech by Bush, the CIA succeeded in removing a reference to an Iraq-Niger connection because of doubts about the intelligence.

The charge was revived for the State of the Union speech in January but referred to Africa generally and attributed the information to the British, even though the CIA had expressed reservations to the British about including some of the information in its public dossier on Iraq.

In that speech, Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

On Friday, Bush and top aides said the CIA approved the inclusion of those words, and CIA Director George J. Tenet took responsibility. Yet Bush aides have argued in recent days that the statement may, in fact, prove to be correct. Officials said Sunday the British had sources other than the forged documents, but they have declined to reveal them.

Yesterday Bush defended the charge as he fielded questions after a meeting in the Oval Office with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence," he said. "And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

The president again noted that his speech was approved by the CIA and suggested that any doubts about the charge came after the speech. "The thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data," he said. "Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech."

Bush's remarks added to contradictions that have been presented by administration officials as they have sought to explain the use of the uranium charge in the State of the Union speech.

Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, said last week that Bush was not angry to learn the charge was based on flawed information. Bush himself has voiced no regret or irritation in public.

But at his briefing yesterday, Fleischer described a displeased Bush. "I assure you, the president is not pleased," he said. "The president, of course, would not be pleased if he said something in the State of the Union that may or may not have been true and should not have risen to his level."

Also, Bartlett, discussing the State of the Union address, said last week that "there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on." But on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought." Rice said "some specifics about amount and place were taken out." Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected, and "the language was changed."

Fleischer said yesterday Rice was not referring to the State of the Union reference but to Bush's October speech given in Cincinnati -- even though Rice was not asked about that speech. Fleischer said that while the line cut from the October speech was based on the Niger allegations, he said the State of the Union claim was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was possible that Saddam was seeking uranium."

But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week earlier that the State of the Union charge was "based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger." Rice was asked a month ago about Bush's State of the Union uranium claim on ABC's "This Week" and replied: "The intelligence community did not know at the time or at levels that got to us that there was serious questions about this report." But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

CIA officials raised doubts about the Niger claims, as Tenet outlined Friday. The last time was when "CIA officials reviewing the draft remarks" of the State of the Union "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet's statement said. "Some of the language was changed."

The change included using British intelligence as the source of the information. The CIA, however, continued to doubt the reliability of the British claim. ---

I love this part: The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective.

The inconsistency of this administration is astounding.

[Burgold]

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement.

Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, said last week that Bush was not angry to learn the charge was based on flawed information. Bush himself has voiced no regret or irritation in public.

Do the ends justify the means? I think Bush would answer yes. The elimination of Sadam was worth exaggerating the danger and using information creatively. In the end, do you think that the ends justify the means?

[gbear]

Oh come on!

--he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Um, Mr. Bush, you're not helping our credibility problem here. Before the war, the UN inspectors were repeatedly allowed access anywhere they wanted to go. The big issue was that Iraq wasn't telling them where to go. They were allowed anywhere.

Mr Bush, you sir have a little problem with the truth. I wonder what Bush would say under oath?

The part about Rice and the Oct speech is interesting too. The White House now says she was talking about the OCT speech when she was asked about the state of the union? It might help to keep the stories straight.

[Kilmer17]

No they werent gbear. The inspectors were denied access to various palaces and govt buildings. Also, they were denied the private interviews with Iraqi scientists.

revisionist history at it's finest.

[chiefhogskin48]

C'mon Kilmer, let these guys have a bit of fun. :laugh: They won't have much to laugh about until 2008 (perhaps their savior Hillary will run for Prez)

[@DCGoldPants]

its true, the guys would be held up at a gate to some building for a hours......not allowed in. Then they'd come back later and it would be empty because Saddam moved whatever was in there.

[Funkyalligator]

Actually Iraqi scientists were allowed to interview privately with UN inspectors but it was in-country and they had to worry about their families...please get your facts straight Kilmer17........UN inspectors were pushing to allow Iraqi scientists to leave the country with their families.

[Funkyalligator]

Ocasionally the UN inspection teams were held up but not too much but perhaps enough for stuff to be moved......I never really expected the UN inspectors to find anything....by the time UN inspectors came back the second time Saddam was very effective at hiding his labs and such so they didn't stand much of chance without full cooperation and high tech gear.

[Kilmer17]

No they werent funky. They were only allowed to interview them with Iraqi officials present.

The fact that 1441 stated that Iraq had to let them and their families leave the country is yet another example of their obstruction.

My facts are facts, yours are blurred.

[gbear]

huh? Interview after interview said the inspectors were allowed in whenever and wherever they wanted. PLease post a single article about them being held up that contains a single quote to that effect. Now you're just plain making stuff up.

[chiefhogskin48]

I thought the liberals were for this war? Why the revisionist backtracking? Because it's politically advantageous?

[Kilmer17]

gbear, I will this afternoon. However, etiquette usually says that thosemaking the first accusation (in this case you saying we had unlimited access) are responsible for the proof.

[fansince62]

Kilmer is right......former inspectors have spoken to being trailed by Iraqi intelligence agents, to being spotted with laser targeting beams for intimidation purposes, not all scieintists were made available, political hacks were always present....gbear...have some decency man! we all feel your pain and disgust, but please don't l;et that get in the way of at least a modicum of objectivity.....

[Om]

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

*

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/July-dec97/butler_12-18.html

http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/03/26/intl/intl.6.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/2002/0305straw.htm

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_01/alia/A3010903.htm

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70146-1083453,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4503458,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030320-iraqtimeline01.htm

http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/12_Inspections_as_Expected.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/00030103.htm

[gbear]

It's on me to prove? You guys are the ones saying the story is false.

Fine, I'll oblige. It's not like there aren't dozens of stories from various sorces quoting Blix.

Perhaps you would believe Blix? It seems he would know more about whether the inspectors were denied access than many on here.

From OM:

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_01/alia/A3010903.htm

UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix told the council that during the first month of inspections U.N. weapons experts had not found any "smoking gun" or been denied access to any facility, but he pointed out that if they had, he would have reported immediately to the council, not waiting for a scheduled session.

from cnn

http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_01/alia/A3010903.htm

On Iraqi cooperation

"Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

Over and over, access was not denied. It is you who are rewriting history.

The laser beam thing above: I remember reading about it, but wasn't that prior to this round of inspections? I seem to recall that from an interview with the US representative/head of the prior round of inspections in the 90's.

[Om]

Chrissakes, gbear, I'm not even going to dignify that.

If you're gonna pull one or two sentences out of one or two of the articles, without even a passing nod to the overall tenor of the pieces you've chosen ... you've already done more to undercut your "position" than I ever could.

Flat out, just so I'm clear on this: are you actually stating that Saddam Hussein did not repeatedly deny access to UN Inspectors in direct contravention to the Security Council Resolutions in the years following the Gulf War?

[fansince62]

gnear...I ahve heard other inspectors on many TV interviews stste just the opposite. an, of course, Blix has demonstarted himself to be an objective, unbiased source!!!!! no irons in the fire for this guy!

[Burgold]

I seem to remember very mixed stories just previous to the war. Blix would complain to a degree about the timing of access, not that he would be denied, but that his degree of freedom and personal choice in timing things was more constrained than he liked. On the other hand, when he made formal reports to the UN, especially when Powell was present he reported much greater latitude and progress being made, sometimes even saying that his inspection was pretty close to unfettered.

[The Evil Genius]

Fan,

Who exactly has shown to be an unbiased objective source?

I will wait years for an answer on that one :laugh:

[gbear]

I said in my first post that the problem was not being denied access. It was them not volunteering.

Om, it's not just one sentance. Om, all of your stories say the same thing (those that even talk about the latest inspection regime). The rest are dated before the inspections. I picked that one as teh first I came across about this inspection time, not those from the 90s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030320-iraqtimeline01.htm

Weapons-inspections chiefs report to the Security Council that, while Iraq has provided access to facilities, concerns remain regarding undeclared material, inability to interview Iraqi scientists, inability to deploy aerial surveillance during inspections, and harassment of inspectors

The truth is, the inspectors were not denied access to any sites. That's a falsehood. What Bush said is patently false. Blix came out and said explicitly that they were never denied access.

[Kilmer17]

LOL TEG.

gbear, before I post my findings, I want to make sure I have the premise correct. You are contending that Saddam et al did not hinder, deny, prevent the inspection of ANY site in Iraq AND they did not deny the right to interview sc ientists outside the country with their families with them and/or without the presence of Iraqi officials. Is that correct?

[chiefhogskin48]

gbear, have you always been opposed to this war, even if Clinton had initiated it (which he wanted to do in the worst way)?

[gbear]

No to the second part. Yes to the first.

Sadam did not prevent inspection of any place in Iraq. Quote after quote above in my article and in OM's show that they did not deny access to anywhere. To do so would have been in Blix's words " a smoking gun." If you find where they did, make sure it was AFTER the inspectors returned, not from back in the 90's.

As for the scientists...that's tough. even now, they are refusing to leave their homes. The story then was that the scientist did not want to leave. They did eventually concede to talk without minders, but the scientists refused to leave. Whether that was the gov or not? probably had some "incentives."

[gbear]

Chief hog skins fan,

I was not always against this war. I always said I wanted to see more plans for what would be done in the aftermath.

I said repeatedly, that if the threat was there, we couldn't allow WMD to terrorists. From the evidence we were being spoon fed, it was not only there but already being shared. Now, that evidence looks no where near as convincing. So I'm annoyed because I chose to trust a president whom I distrusted on most other issues.

What's more, my concerns from before the war about the aftermath, and not seeing good plans for how to get out have proved justified. What's more our priorities in the war have been terrible. We secured oil fields in days and left suspected WMD sites to be looted over a period of months. When you start from where I started, that the war was to prevent the spread of WMD, to secure oil over the WMD is inexecusable.

Unless of course we didn't have accurate info about the WMD, in which case the reason for the war kind of falls apart.

[Kilmer17]

Heres the first thing I found. Note the time frame. The inspectors were delayed at the gate. Remember that the UN inspectors had inspected a suspect nuke lab before the war and deemed it clean, only after the war did we discover the hidden underground lab. What happened in those 8 minutes?

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/sunnews/news/nation/4661040.htm

This an exceprt from bbc.

TONY BLAIR: I'm sorry, what Hans Blix has said is that the Iraqis are not cooperating properly.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Hans Blix said he saw no evidence, either of weapons manufacture, or that they had been concealed.

TONY BLAIR: No, I don't think again that is right. I think what he said was that the evidence that he had indicated that the Iraqis were not cooperating properly and that, for example, he thought that the nerve agent VX may have been weaponised.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/2732979.stm

Here's one detailing from 97http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1105-06.htm

I know you want to ignore that because it was old. But answer this. What were they hiding in 97? And what happened to that stuff since 97?