Rice: CIA approved Bush remark on Iraq

AP | 7/11/03 | MIKE GLOVER

[kattracks]

ENTEBBE, Uganda (AP) — President Bush's national security adviser said Friday the CIA cleared Bush's State of the Union speech in its entirety, including a sentence alleging that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material from Africa.

If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, "he did not make them known" to Bush or his staff, said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Her comments to reporters aboard Air Force One came as the administration presented a full-press defense of Bush's use of that allegation against Saddam Hussein, which the White House subsequently acknowledged was based on false information.

"The CIA cleared the speech. The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety," Rice said as Bush flew from South Africa to Uganda. Questions about the allegations in Bush's January speech have followed him on this five-day trip through Africa.

The agency raised only one objection to the sentence involving an allegation that Iraq was trying to obtain yellow cake uranium, she said. "Some specifics about amount and place were taken out," Rice said.

"With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared," she said. "The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out."

Rice made the defense of the White House in a rare 50-minute meeting with reporters aboard the president's plane.

The comments come amid published reports that some CIA officials had conveyed to the White House misgivings about the yellow cake allegation prior to Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union address.

Rice dismissed that notion, noting that the CIA had mentioned such a claim — that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa — in a classified National Intelligence Assessment made periodically to the president.

"If the CIA — the director of central intelligence — had said take this out of the speech — it would have been gone," Rice said. "We have a high standard for the president's speeches."

Asked whether Bush had confidence in the intelligence agency, Rice replied, "Absolutely."

When queried on reports the CIA expressed concern to the White House about the allegation, she suggested that Tenet should be asked directly. "I'm not blaming anyone here," Rice said.

"The president did not knowingly say anything that we knew to be false," she said. "We wouldn't put anything knowingly in the speech that was false."

[zook]

Your comments here are far different than the ones I originally responded to. They suggested that three key reasons for the invasion had been shown to be false. We know this is not the case, that good evidence supports all three.

You may have concerns a la "where are the weapons?" but logic, reasoning, and good evidence indicate that they were there and may still even be there.

[zook]

During wartime, there are ways to respectfully take issue with war policies without undercutting them and thereby offering functional aid and comfort to our enemies. Making silly claims about "war without end" is not one of them. "War without end" is what happens when you adopt a passive or isolationist position with regard to Islamic terrorism.

[ravingnutter]

Speaking of USA Today...

A cable classified "secret" went out from CIA headquarters to the White House Situation Room in March 2002 reporting on a visit to the African country of Niger by a retired diplomat on a special mission for the CIA. The envoy, whose name has not been disclosed, was investigating allied intelligence reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from that country. His account said Iraq had sought closer economic ties with Niger but had not discussed a uranium sale.

The original intelligence reports were based on documents that were shown after Bush's speech to be crude forgeries. But at the time, they raised alarms in the Bush administration that Iraq was acquiring the ingredients for a nuclear weapon. In his January speech, Bush cited British accounts of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium among other tell-tale signs and said that "Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the CIA report on the envoy's trip lacked details that would have warned the White House that the uranium-buying allegations were suspect. This failure, the article suggested, may have helped lead Bush to repeat the allegations long after U.S. intelligence had determined that they were groundless.

USA Today

[DannyTN]

"I am no longer so certain, absent proof, hard proof, found proof, of WMDs that they were a threat great enough to warrant the death of American soldiers. "

• Look Saddam clearly openly braggingly supported international terrorism.
• Saddam clearly openly bragged about having "Nuclear Muhjadeen". The British intelligence was merely a corroborating fact to what Saddam himself was saying.
• we lost 3000 American lives to international terrorism, and while we don't have firm proof that Saddam was part of that, there are pieces of circumstantial evidence.

Can you honestly look at what we knew (regardless of the British intelligence) and say you would have been willing to risk American lives by leaving Saddam in power?

1. Either Saddam was telling the truth about pursuing WMD in which case we would have been stupid not to take him out.
2. Or Saddam was lying about having a Nuclear program, in which case it's his fault anyway.

Take your pick!!!

[jwfiv]

I'm with ya, DannyTN.

The Dims are crying that Dubya refused to underestimate the lethality of Saddam's intention.

Previously, they were breathlessly whining about Dubya underestimating al-queda's lethal intention.

One thing for sure, I do not underestimate the lethality of the the Dim's intention, and that is to cripple this President and our War on Terror...in this, they ally themselves with our enemies, for their goals are the same.

For all the doubters, consider what would surely come to pass if Saddam's ruse were successfuly played out...if the French solution, the Kerry/Dean solution, was to rule the day: In a couple of years, NYC & DC would go BOOM.

No. Gimme Dubya and his posse, instead of the Dims and their wussies.

[cogitator]

I don't remember the press going bonkers over the easily refuted Clinton remark in one of his SOTU's where he said that Russian nukes were not pointed towards the US anymore.

I remember that, you may not have been paying full attention. The mainstream press (liberals) didn't say much about it. The conservative media went nuts. The situation on this uranium-in-Africa vis-a-vis the media is reversed.

[7DayRepo]

some CIA officials

But do you really think the average American reader is perceptive enough to detect the mendacity underlying the media's use of weasel words like these? I very much doubt it.

[cyncooper]

The intell was based on British intelligence, not our own from what I've read. That's why Bush cited British intelligence in the speech, not our own.

Which Blair stands by to this day.

[cyncooper]

Is it just me or is the media all now claiming that we went to war over non-existent uranium from Niger?

No, it's not just you. As a defense attorney will try to deflect guilt from his client by ignoring the totality of the evidence, so dems and their handmaidens in the media are focusing on one detail of the vast array of information leading up to the war in Iraq, including the votes in Congress, the fact that Britain--to this very day--stands by the Niger/uranium story, and so on.

Brace yourself: Fox showed an ad sponsored in part by Moveon.org that has set up a new site called Misleader, and is supposed to start airing on tv Monday. The piece blatantly conveys what you have observed: It claims we went to war based soley on this uranium story and that it turned out to be false. I don't know how it will get cleared to actually air, but we shall see.

[No Truce With Kings]

And you might be interested in THIS story, too:

From http://tennessean.com/nation-world/archives/03/06/34908297.shtml?Element_ID=34908297

Document links Saddam, bin Laden

By GILBERT S. MERRITT
For The Tennessean

Federal appellate Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of Nashville is in Iraq as one of 13 experts selected by the U.S. Justice Department to help rebuild Iraq's judicial system.

Merritt, 67, has made trips to Russia and India to work with their judicial systems. He has been sending periodic reports to The Tennessean about his experiences in Iraq and filed this dispatch recently:

Through an unusual set of circumstances, I have been given documentary evidence of the names and positions of the 600 closest people in Iraq to Saddam Hussein, as well as his ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I am looking at the document as I write this story from my hotel room overlooking the Tigris River in Baghdad.

One of the lawyers with whom I have been working for the past five weeks had come to me and asked me whether a list of the 600 people closest to Saddam Hussein would be of any value now to the Americans.

I said, yes, of course. He said that the list contained not only the names of the 55 ''deck of cards'' players who have already been revealed, but also 550 others.

When I began questioning him about the list, how he obtained it and what else it showed, he asked would it be of interest to the Americans to know that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Osama bin Laden.

I said yes, the Americans have, so far as I am aware, have never been able to prove that relationship, but the president and others have said that they believe it exists. He said, ''Well, judge, there is no doubt it exists, and I will bring you the proof tomorrow.''

So today he brought me the proof, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is right.

The document shows that an Iraqi intelligence officer, Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, assigned to the Iraq embassy in Pakistan, is ''responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group.''

The document shows that it was written over the signature of Uday Saddam Hussein, the son of Saddam Hussein. The story of how the document came about is as follows.

Saddam gave Uday authority to control all press and media outlets in Iraq. Uday was the publisher of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper.

On the front page of the paper's four-page edition for Nov. 14, 2002, there was a picture of Osama bin Laden speaking, next to which was a picture of Saddam and his ''Revolutionary Council,'' together with stories about Israeli tanks attacking a group of Palestinians.

On the back page was a story headlined ''List of Honor.'' In a box below the headline was ''A list of men we publish for the public.'' The lead sentence refers to a list of ''regime persons'' with their names and positions.

The list has 600 names and titles in three columns. It contains, for example, the names of the important officials who are members of Saddam's family, such as Uday, and then other high officials, including the 55 American ''deck of cards'' Iraqi officials, some of whom have been apprehended.

Halfway down the middle column is written: ''Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan.'' (For more about the list, see accompanying article on this page.)

The lawyer who brought the newspaper to me, Samir, and another lawyer with whom I have been working, Zuhair, translated the Arabic words and described what had happened in Baghdad the day it was published.

Samir bought his paper at a newsstand at around 8 a.m. Within two hours, the Iraqi intelligence officers were going by every newsstand in Baghdad and confiscating the papers. They also went to the home of every person who they were told received a paper that day and confiscated it.

The other lawyer, Zuhair, who was the counsel for the Arab League in Baghdad, did not receive delivery of his paper that day. He called his vendor, who told him that there would be no paper that day, a singular occurrence he could not explain.

For the next 10 days, the paper was not published at all. Samir's newspaper was not confiscated and he retained it because it contained this interesting ''Honor Roll of 600'' of the people closest to the regime.

The only explanation for this strange set of events, according to the Iraqi lawyers, is that Uday, an impulsive and somewhat unbalanced individual, decided to publish this honor roll at a time when the regime was under worldwide verbal attack in the press, especially by us. It would, he thought, make them more loyal and supportive of the regime.

His father was furious, knowing that it revealed information about his supporters that should remain secret.

For example, at the same time this was published, Saddam was denying that he had any relationship with Osama. Therefore Saddam had all the papers confiscated, and he ordered that publication of the paper be stopped for 10 days.

That is the story of the ''Honor Roll of 600,'' and why I believe that President Bush was right when he alleged that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama and was coordinating activities with him.

It does not prove that they engaged together in any particular act of terror against the United States.

But it seems to me to be strong proof that the two were in contact and conspiring to perform terrorist acts.

Up until this time, I have been skeptical about these claims. Now I have changed my mind. There is, however, one big problem remaining: They are both still at large and the combined forces of the free world have been unable to find them.

Until we find and capture them, they will remain a threat — Saddam with the remnants of his army and supporters in combination with the worldwide terrorist organization of Osama bin Laden.

[DannyTN]

"Boy you're responding by throwing everything at me but the kitchen sink, a typical tactic of the pro-war freepers who seem to be constantly shifting in in their rationale for hte war."

Kirk, if he could reach through the screen and hit you with the kitchen sink he would, because you deserve it.

It's not treason to investigate whether a sitting president lied.

• But when a reported investigates the facts and then twists those facts into something they are not....
• when people repeat false stories they heard on liberal medias, after the facts have clearly come out and those stories refuted, ...
• when people continue to imply the President lied, when they know he did not...
• when people continue to claim the intelligence was false when the British intelligence continues to say it's valid....
• when people continue to imply the war wasn't justified because Saddam didn't have a WMD program, when Saddam himself bragged about his "Nuclear Muhjadeen".
• well then these actions are clearly....

  TREASON!!!

[No Truce With Kings]

Tell us how you really feel, DannyTN.

[DannyTN]

I think Ann's unleased a monster. That word "treason" embodies all the frustrations I feel towards the Democrat's unethical tactics.

There's something refreshing about calling a spade a spade.

[Nick Danger]

do you really think the average American reader is perceptive enough to detect the mendacity

Subtract out the 42% who would vote for a Democrat if it were a dead body, and I think the answer is yes.

The "Bush knew!" thing a year ago was nuts. Here come the media, with the Democrats in tow, alleging that the President of the United States sat idly by, knowing that Islamic Terrorists were about to fly airplanes into numerous buildings in the U.S., killing thousands. This so his buddies in the oil business could make money, or some such. There were Serious People in television news acting like we were supposed to believe this. It was nuts on the face of it, and they couldn't even tell.

Then comes the Afghan war. "Quagmire and defeat" was the drumbeat from the media, from beginning to end. Every bomb we dropped fell on a child holding a puppy. When Kabul fell and the Taliban was routed, the drumbeat turned into starvation and death for the innocents, as though life under the Taliban had been milk and honey. People aren't stupid. They see this, and they also see right through it.

I think the Iraq war was their Waterloo, because there were live pictures of tanks rolling toward Baghdad even as the news anchors told of more quagmires and defeats. Who could watch the Fox News reporter standing in front of Saddam's main palace in Baghdad without noticing the huge disparity between televised reality and the version offered by Peter Jennings?

So here they come now with this "What did he know and when did he know it" crap again. The Democratic partisans cheer, imagining that they are finally on the attack after months of having their heads handed to them on a plate.

I think most people treat it as a big yawn. "There they go again," a press corps that hates the guy and tries to sell us goofy conspiracy theories about him because they themselves have gone goofy. "The news" isn't the "news" anymore. It's a bunch of ax-grinders on TV and in the paper telling us all about their own politics, and how passionately they feel about their politics. What really happened? You can't find out from these guys anymore. They won't tell you. You've seen it with your own eyes that they will stand there and lie to you, hoping to sell you their politics.

What is it this time? The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing? Oh my goodness, how could such a thing happen in the federal government? In happens in my office of 25 people all the time, but you'd think in a bureaucracy with a million people in it, they'd have that sort of thing eliminated.

[rintense]

Where's CFR when you need it?

[zook]

Read the sentence carefully. It says that if you work to undercut the President's policies, then you are giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

If our enemies believe they can wait us out until the next election, if they believe that American opinion is turning against the President, then they'll be more likely to imagine we are weak and more motivated to continue to fight us.

[cyncooper]

Joseph Wilson (who organized Clintons 1200 person trip to Africa in 2000)

Don't forget worked in the offices of Al Gore and Tom Foley in between diplomatic (beginning with Carter, admittedly also under Reagan and GHWB) assignments, then for clinton.

I just switched back to MSNBC after hearing Rodger Hedgecock do a pretty good job of explaining the facts of this subject. MSNBC just said all of Washington is buzzing over this topic and they will have a "debate" about it coming up.

[browardchad]

Probably why Tenet had no problem with it- because it wasn't our own.

That's exactly the problem -- we don't have our own intelligence, but we do have a bunch of desk-jockey spies interested in playing the CYA game.

By contrast, the Australian equivalent of our CIA jumped out in front to take whatever blame may lay with the claim, thus protecting Howard. Why hasn't Tenent done likewise -- he's certainly got enough friends in Congress to help him weather the storm. Where is he -- planning another grandstanding bombing of a bunker where Saddam Hussein isn't?

[MJY1288]

If you do a GOOGLE search on "Ambassador Joseph Wilson" there are quite a few interviews of him that occur after the SOTU speech and nowhere does he mention anything about his all important mission in Niger, I posted a bunch of them last night, including a detailed bio on him.