President Defends Allegation on Iraq

[Theophylact]

From today's Washington Post.

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.

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."

As I said earlier, Bush on the defensive.

And when you are defensive, you tend to trip.

Bush is heading for a big fall here.

[Epidemic]

The only thing I see wrong on the yellow cake junk is that Bush is dancing now. That makes me feel as if he may be backpedaling.

basic reasons for back pedal
1) always knew it to be shakey evidence
2) Does not trust UK's interperetation of remaining evidence (suspects that they might be doing CYA in UK.)
3) Political pressure to speak on the issue is causing them to take a position that they really do not believe. I.E. Saddam was trying to purchase the junk but the UK will not produce the remaining evidence so Bush does not feel obligated to stand by the evidence.

First sensible post this week, Duke.

[Bill in SD, CA]

I'd personally like to see the "intel" Clinton had when he bombed the aspirin factory. The diff?

Bill

Aspirin? I thought it was a baby Formula Milk powder factory. The CIA spooks saw the stainless steel vessels and poof concluded it was a nuklear factory.

To be fair, though, the CIA is understaffed, overworked and full of mediocre staff/operatives because it was practically decimated in the 1990s under Clinton.

All the more reason Bush should have been careful in dealing with the CIA.

Now, after all this trouble, Bush says he has faith and supports Tenet.

I don't know if Bush is stubborn, fair, loyal, inflexible, or stupid.

Wait.

I do know the answer.

[Bill in SD, CA]

Bill Clinton Bombs an Aspirin Factory

My bad.

[Epidemic]

Baby Milk factory was during the gulf war. A propaganda shot for the foreign press.

As I recall there was a bombed out facillity in the background and a hand written sign on a stick pounded in the ground. "Baby Milk Factory" hardly convincing proof. fellar yelling at the camera did not even have the forsight to go to the store and grab a can of baby milk to toss on the ground.

[MTAtech]

"I cannot tell a lie"