White House releases Iraq documents

[jbooma]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA01

White House releases Iraq documents

Intelligence paper confirms longtime doubts on uranium

CIA Director George Tenet accepted personal responsibility for allowing the president to make the false allegation against Iraq.

NBC, MSNBC AND NEWS SERVICES

WASHINGTON, July 18 — Responding to allegations that it falsified some of its case for war with Iraq, the Bush administration on Friday released parts of an intelligence assessment from October that cited “compelling evidence” that Iraq was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program. But the document included a notation from the State Department calling an assertion at the center of the controversy “highly dubious.”

THE WHITE HOUSE has been under pressure to explain how a sentence accusing Iraq of seeking uranium from Africa made its way into the president’s State of the Union address in January. The accusation, which later turned out to involve the west African nation of Niger, has since been discredited.

CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility for allowing the president to make the false accusation, saying his agency approved the sentence in reviewing the final draft of the speech. But NBC and other news organizations have detailed how the CIA had serious reservations about the allegation and tried as long as three months in advance to have it removed from other presidential addresses.

The documents released Friday, excerpts from the intelligence community’s October National Intelligence Estimate, speak generally of the Iraqi threat, asserting that “if left unchecked ... [baghdad] probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade.”

The report cites “high confidence” within the intelligence community that “Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.”

Under the category of “moderate confidence,” the report states that “Iraq does not yet have a nuclear weapon or sufficient material to make one but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.”

CLAIM CALLED ‘HIGHLY DUBIOUS’

On the key question at the heart of Bush’s discredited allegation, the document does mention reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries — Niger, Somalia and “possibly” Congo.

Advertisement

But the document notes that those reports were unsubstantiated, and it includes a footnote from the State Department that says “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ... highly dubious.”

The Africa allegation is not mentioned among the document’s “key judgments.” Officials who worked on it told NBC News’ Carl Rochelle on Friday that the allegation was not substantiated well enough to be in the report’s summary conclusions.

The intelligence assessment also appears to call into question Bush’s accusation that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could try to help arm the al-Qaida terrorist network with chemical or biological weapons, saying in its last paragraph that the intelligence community had “low confidence” in that scenario.

NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell reported Friday that some U.S. intelligence officials had been concerned about the White House’s strong attempt to defend its position in the past week. The allegation of possible links between Saddam and al-Qaida had been one of the prime arguments the administration used to persuade Congress to authorize the war in Iraq, and the intelligence officials feared that public acknowledgment of the low level of confidence in that conclusion could be embarrassing.

DOUBTS OVER BUSH’S CASE

The controversy over Bush’s claim about uranium has undermined the administration’s efforts to quiet rising doubts about his justifications for going to war. The United States said military action was justified, in part, because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but no such weapons have been found.

The discredited intelligence cited in Bush’s address is a series of letters purportedly between officials of Iraq and Niger. The letters indicated that Niger would supply uranium to Saddam’s government in a form that could be refined for nuclear weapons.

The CIA acknowledged last week that it had its doubts about the information, but Bush administration officials repeatedly sought to include the assertion in public statements aimed at vilifying Iraq, sources told NBC News.

The CIA sometimes succeeded in getting the information removed from such statements, the sources said. Most notably, Tenet himself persuaded the White House to strike it from a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati in October, fully three months before he repeated it in his State of the Union address.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weapons debate heats up

July 18 — As U.S. teams search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the domestic debate over the premise for war is intensifying. NBC’s Campbell Brown reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INCLUSION IN FINAL DRAFT

NBC News has previously reported that Robert Joseph, the National Security Council’s senior director for proliferation strategy, and the CIA’s weapons proliferation director, Alan Foley, argued about whether the reference should have been in the speech.

Sources have told the network that, after Foley objected to the first draft of the passage, Joseph came up with the suggestion of attributing it to the British, asking Foley whether that would make it technically correct.

Because British intelligence officials had made the information public, Foley acknowledged that the passage was factually accurate, even though the CIA did not think the assertion was true, according to the sources.

The CIA’s inspector general and the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board are investigating whether Foley should have consulted higher-ups and whether Joseph exerted undue influence, among other issues, the sources said.

[@DCGoldPants]

How come nobody is responding to this thread? I thought people would be all over it.

[SEF]

Yeah. Pretty strange, huh?

[redman]

Interesting that you're selecting the historically anti-war/anti-military/anti-intelligence State Department's one-sentence footnote over the CIA (you know, the agency in charge of such matters) and British intelligence, both of whom stand by their overall assessment that there were efforts by the Iraqis to obtain natural, unrefined, yellow cake uranium from multiple African countries, including Niger.

[SEF]

I'm sorry. Are you addressing the article?

[redman]

Originally posted by jbooma

CLAIM CALLED ‘HIGHLY DUBIOUS’

On the key question at the heart of Bush’s discredited allegation, the document does mention reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries — Niger, Somalia and “possibly” Congo.

Advertisement

But the document notes that those reports were unsubstantiated, and it includes a footnote from the State Department that says “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ... highly dubious.”

Yes, I am.

[SEF]

Okay. The way you worded your reply confused me. My bad.

[redman]

There's such a philosophical divide between the State Department and the Admin/CIA/Defense Dept that I don't trust what they say right now when the issue of going to war is looming over one's analysis and interpretation of intel.

Remember, aside from Colin Powell, State didn't want to go to war in Iraq. That undercuts them as their game is negotiation and diplomacy. They preferred the UN route, but they lost out on that one.

[SEF]

Granted, but in this case it appears they were right.

[redman]

Again, I grant you they were right to doubt the documents, but given that the Brits stand by their overall intel on the uranium acquisition efforts, I don't think we can say they were right about that entire issue.

[SEF]

Here's what I get out of this. The White House has said that the info included in the SOTU shouldn't of been there. And if they'd only known then what they know now... Well, it appears that they did.

[RiggoDrill]

No WMD, no impending nuclear threat, and stated doubts about the Al-Queda connection.

Sounds like this administration is being called on its BS.

[redman]

Originally posted by sfrench

The White House has said that the info included in the SOTU shouldn't of been there.

I know of no statement from the White House saying this.

Tenet indicated he wished he'd read the speech beforehand, but didn't go so far as to say he thought the general claim - the issue of the Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium - was false.

[SEF]

Why in the world did they release this? There must be some point I'm missing.

[TheKurp]

Sfrench,

They released it because it would have looked far worse had they been ordered to release it by members of the Senate committee who are investigating this matter.

[SEF]

Redman-

"Despite the assessment's partisan pedigree, the Bush White House reacted swiftly, announcing Monday, "Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech."

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/10/104919

The Newsmax link is for Kilmer...

[SEF]

They released it because it would have looked far worse had they been ordered to release it by members of the Senate committee who are investigating this matter.

Geez, what happened to just calling the Senators traitors and soft of terrorism.

[fansince62]

yawn......

[SEF]

Told you they were lying. :nana:

[fansince62]

if you say so!...it must be so........

[fansince62]

that's the way....uh huh uh huh...I like it!.....do a little dance......toss a little mud....uh huh uh huh........that's the way....uh huh uh huh.....I like it!

[SEF]

:dj:

[fansince62]

:snore: