Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Yep, no shenanigans out of the White House.


TheKurp

Recommended Posts

Lie: The administration said it did not have the forged documents before the SOTU. An investigation has proved otherwise.

Deception: Bush has blamed the CIA for the 16 word gaff. Apparently the CIA did object to the mention of the Niger uranium connection just prior to the SOTU but Robert Joseph, an assistant to Bush, decided to use creative word-play and state that the British said there was a connection.

Okay Kilmer et al, spin away.

U.S. Had Uranium Papers Earlier

By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest

Washington Post Staff Writers

Friday, July 18, 2003;

The State Department received copies of what would turn out to be forged documents suggesting that Iraq tried to purchase uranium oxide from Niger three months before the president's State of the Union address, administration officials said.

The documents, which officials said appeared to be of "dubious authenticity," were distributed to the CIA and other agencies within days. But the U.S. government waited four months to turn them over to United Nations weapons inspectors who had been demanding to see evidence of U.S. and British claims that Iraq's attempted purchase of uranium oxide violated U.N. resolutions and was among the reasons to go to war. State Department officials could not say yesterday why they did not turn over the documents when the inspectors asked for them in December.

The administration, facing increased criticism over the claims it made about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium, had said until now that it did not have the documents before the State of the Union speech.

Even before these documents arrived, both the State Department and the CIA had questions about the reliability of intelligence reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger and other African countries.

Beginning in October, the CIA warned the administration not to use the Niger claim in public. CIA Director George J. Tenet personally persuaded deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley to omit it from President Bush's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

But on the eve of Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address, Robert Joseph, an assistant to the president in charge of nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC), initially asked the CIA if the allegation that Iraq sought to purchase 500 pounds of uranium from Niger could be included in the presidential speech.

Alan Foley, a senior CIA official, disclosed this detail when he accompanied Tenet in a closed-door hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Wednesday.

Foley, director of the CIA's intelligence, nonproliferation and arms control center, told committee members that the controversial 16-word sentence was eventually suggested by Joseph in a telephone conversation just a day or two before the speech, according to congressional and administration sources who were present at the five-hour session.

At the hearing, Foley said he called Joseph to object to mentioning Niger and that a specific amount of uranium was being sought. Joseph agreed to eliminate those two elements but then proposed that the speech use more general language, citing British intelligence that said Iraq had recently been seeking uranium in Africa.

Foley said he told Joseph that the CIA had objected months earlier to the British including that in their published September dossier because of the weakness of the U.S. information. But Foley said the British had gone ahead based on their own information.

When Foley first began answering questions on who from the White House staff sought to put the uranium charge in the State of the Union address, he did not mention Joseph's name, referring only to "a person" at the NSC. It was only after Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and several other senators demanded the name that he identified him.

A senior administration official said yesterday the only conversation that took place was about the classification of the source of the alleged uranium transaction. The question was whether to attribute the alleged transaction to a classified U.S. intelligence estimate or to a published British dossier and, he said, it was "agreed to use the British."

However, there are six other references to information carried in the U.S. estimate, and they are attributed to "U.S. intelligence" or "intelligence sources."

Both the Senate committee and the White House have begun internal discussions over how to handle the potentially delicate task of questioning presidential aides as part of a congressional investigation. Claims of executive privilege have in the past increased public interest and complicated the process of calling on White House aides to testify.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said Wednesday night: "We will take this where it leads us. We'll let the chips fall where they may." A senior congressional aide said Roberts is prepared to seek a way to question Joseph and any other White House aides.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, said yesterday: "The intelligence committee has crossed that line . . . and we are looking at people in the executive branch, including the White House." He said that both Republicans and Democrats are concerned "about the further implication beyond Tenet."

The FBI is also considering opening a counterintelligence case if it suspects a foreign government created the forgeries about the alleged Iraqi uranium purchase to influence U.S. foreign policy.

Next week, the Senate intelligence committee will hold a closed-door hearing to question the CIA's inspector general, who has been investigating the agency's handling of nuclear-related intelligence on Iraq.

The documents first came into the U.S. government's hands when a journalist turned them over to U.S. Embassy officials in Rome. Other officials said previously that the Italian intelligence services had given the documents to the British, which first mentioned the Niger-Iraq claim in its published case against Iraq in September.

"We acquired the documents in October of 2002, and they were shared widely within the U.S. government, with all the appropriate agencies in various ways," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday.

The embassy promptly informed the CIA station chief in Rome that it had the documents and, on Oct. 19, gave copies to intelligence officials.

A senior intelligence official said the agency did not consider the documents revelatory because they contained the same information, from other sources, already in intelligence reports. But in hindsight, the official said, "we failed to see the signals" that would have indicated they were forged.

Another intelligence official said "the documents were such a minor point of analysis for anyone" because the information was not deemed reliable.

On Feb. 4, the U.N. inspectors' Iraq team was called to the U.S. mission in Vienna and verbally briefed on the contents of the documents. A day later, they received copies, according to officials familiar with the inspectors' work.

Using the Google Internet search engine, books on Niger and interviews with Iraqi and Nigerien officials, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) experts determined that the documents were fake.

On March 7, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei announced they were forged. It is not yet known who created the forgeries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny the Brits still stand by this info. Think it's still possible they might have better intelligence than us in that particular region of the world. Of course, this might not have been the case had the previous administration not gutted our HUMIT (Human Intelligence) apparatus as badly as they gutted the military. I can't wait until they finish translating all the documented stuff our military has found over there about the Iraqi WMD program and publish it. It'll be fun to watch Bush open the Dems mouths, shove it down their throats and make them chew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the transcript from the White House and I'm siding with Kilmer here. I think the President said it best when he said....

"Move 'em on (Head 'em up)

Head 'em up (Move 'em up)

Move 'em on (Head 'em up)

Rawhide

Cut 'em out (Ride 'em in)

Ride 'em in (Cut 'em out)

Cut 'em out (Ride 'em in)

Rawhide"

That's good enough for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it fine Kurp. Have you read the other articles that say the British stand behind the claims and had other evidence to support it?

The forged document that has the lefties panties in a bunch was nothing more than extra evidence to back up facts they already had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blair is under more pressure from British citizens than Bush is at home from U.S. citizens.

Do you really think British Intelligence would admit to bad info? Perhaps after Blair is gone we'll find out for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just happy the money to the Palestinian Homocide Bombers is drying up.

I don't think they are going to find a ton of WMD though.

I'm glad that Saddam is out of power

I'm not happy that people from our Military are being killed everyday

So......there are mixed feelings there. I just want this to be over so we can focus on our own country and its internal needs right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The arguments about the knowing use of forged documents remind me of (of all things) the defense in the OJ case.

The evidence in favor of conviction was overwhelming, so the defense used a smear campaign against one person who gathered a small amount of the evidence - labelling Mark Fuhrman a racist - to tar the entire prosecution, this despite there being absolutely no evidence that race influenced Fuhrman's investigation, much less the investigation at large which involved literally dozens of different people.

Here, there was a great level of justification for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, some of the best justification - WMD's - has not (yet) been fully borne out with physical evidence being found in Iraq. But rather than really even attacking that issue, the Dems are going hog wild over a single set of documents that were forged, but were part of a larger case that said precisely the same things about attempts to acquire yellow cake that the documents did.

One false document does make a case against Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear components, much less does it defeat the case for an invasion of Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redman,

While I fully understand the point you're making, and agree with it, this is not my issue.

My issue is one of credibility and honestly before the American people. This is not turning out to be some innocent oversight. There is mounting evidence of an intent to deceive. The end does not justify the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only in the mind of Bush hating lefties is this a deception.

More and more Im beginning to think the Bush WH is setting the Dem party up for a huge suprise and a sweep in 04. 60 in the Senate, a few more statehouses and Governor Mansions.

Im curious about the "motherlode" of Documents we discovered this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by TheKurp

My issue is one of credibility and honestly before the American people. This is not turning out to be some innocent oversight. There is mounting evidence of an intent to deceive. The end does not justify the means.

I've already granted you that the documents are forged.

I'll even grant you that the Administration, if not even Bush himself, knew that those documents were forged as of the SOTU.

However, they indicated reliance upon the British, not the documents in the SOTU.

So I ask you, where's the mounting evidence? Is there something that I've missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kilmer,

Why did Bush blame the CIA when all along it was his assistant who, knowing the CIA objected to the use of the intel, took it upon himself to include the 16 words into the SOTU? Clearly this was not Tenent's fault and it's become apparent he was ordered to "fall on the sword."

2. Why did the administration fail to give the documents to U.N. inspectors? The documents were badly forged and would have dispelled the U.S. case for Iraq's nuclear program. I'll tell you why, turning over the papers to the U.N. inspectors was not to our advantage. It was to our advantage to continue to make the world believe that Iraq was pursuing nuclear capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...