Since it’s nearly impossible to turn around over the past few days without running accross references to (essentially) Bush blatantly lying in his 2003 State of the Union address about Iraq seeking uranium in Niger, since that story was based on a forged document that the US new to be bogus a year earlier.
Bush’s statement in question is remarkably short, and rather indirect:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
(That this whole brouhaha has been triggered by the White House itself retracting reliance on that bogus document, long after the fact, not by some huge breaking bit of insider information is lost in the discussion.)
The problem is, not only does this beg the issue of whether everyone thought that Iraq probably had WMDs ferreted away, but two other articles I’ve run across seem to indicate that the story is a lot more complex.
First off, did the White House actually know the report was bogus? Or was that analysis not passed on from the CIA?
A key component of President Bush’s claim in his State of the Union address last January that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program — its alleged attempt to buy uranium in Niger — was disputed by a CIA-directed mission to the central African nation in early 2002, according to senior administration officials and a former government official. But the CIA did not pass on the detailed results of its investigation to the White House or other government agencies, the officials said.
(Though there is some question about this — other reports have mentioned in passing, other officials saying that the information was passed on, or perhaps was passed on without qualifications that might have flagged it as more believable.)
Secondly, was the Niger/Africa uranium story based only on that bogus document? Or was there other intelligence that pointed in that direction as well?
Addressing Parliament, Blair insisted that the story was not “a fantasy,” as some U.S. sources were claiming, and that reports that British intelligence had based its finding solely on documents that later turned out to be counterfeit were not true.
“The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called ‘forged’ documents, they came from separate intelligence,” Blair insisted, according to the BBC.
What I find amazing is that so much is being made over one, small, self-retracted statement in the SOTU as something that is tantamount to the Gulf of Tonkin — especially since (a) there were a lot of other statements in the SOTU supporting the case for war, and (b) it sounds like it’s not really a case of lying after all. If those who have doubts about the war’s justifications are looking for something to nail Dubya on, this seems like a pretty weak foundation upon which to do so, and may actually end up discrediting that cause.
(via InstaPundit)
I must say Dave, I’m continually amazed by how willing you are to be an apologist for Bush and Co. For one thing, I don’t think RightWingNews and NewsMax are particularly credible sources for Bush debunking. Here are a couple more links:
Washington Post – July 8
The Independent – July 9
At the very least, the administration should submit to some serious questioning about where they got the info, who argued for and against its veracity, and when they knew it was fake.
Finally, I don’t think alleging Iraq was thisclose to building nuclear weapons, in the State of the Union speech, is a “small” statement by any measure. It’s part of a systematic pattern of whipping up fear by any means necessary, and that matters.
I try not to consider myself as an apologist for the Bushies as much as having a reflexive dislike of what seems unreasonable and over-the-top demonizing of folks, regardless of their political stand. I’m inclined to give folks the benefit of the doubt, and I think there’s plenty of doubt here to be had.
While I would not expect unbiased analysis from something called “RightWingNews,” I did bother to read (and link to) both the WaPo and BBC articles they pointed at, so far as the “facts” are concerned; the analysis they make fits in with those articles, by my reading.
The (week) later WaPo article you cite leaves, in my mind, plenty of doubt as to how reliable the information about attempts by Iraq to purchase African uranium was, though there seems to have been a range of information beyond the forged documents in question (which matches the ongoing assertions by the UK). There is also substantial doubt as to how (un)reliable the information was considered in the White House in January ’03. To my mind, I don’t yet see a smoking gun as to whether information known by the White House to be false, or even highly dubious, was passed on in that single sentence in the SOTU.
I also don’t see a smoking gun in the Independent article (or in this parallel article from the WaPo). They certainly hint at a lot, but it’s all supposition and reasoned speculation as to how the info was or was not handled, or who at the top level knew what and when.
I do agree that there is a need for investigation of how intelligence information was obtained, handled, analyzed, and reported upon. I think it’s doubtful that there will be that thorough of an investigation, nor that we’ll ever have much of a definitive answer on this for decades, if for no other reason that the folks who might direct or force such an investigation have too much political stake in a predetermined outcome — from either side — and are unwilling to go along with anything that doesn’t either exonerate the WH from any wrongdoing, or indicts the WH for being an evil set of desceptive bastards.
Well, there damn well sure should be a thorough investigation. The bobbing and weaving the administration is doing these days makes me want to take a Dramamine. The latest from Rumsfeld is, well, we didn’t go to war because of any “new” evidence – just stuff from before 9/11 that we looked at in a new light after we got attacked. Which, ironically, I think is much closer to the truth – but it’s not what they said at the time. It’s not. They said, he has this stuff, it’s a huge threat, he has it now, and we *know* it. After all this obfuscation, does anyone believe that sentence anymore?
Also, I don’t think requiring the POTUS to be accountable in every respect in relation to a war waged against a foreign power is “unreasonable and over-the-top demonizing.” Fake information in the State of the Union, however it got there, is a big deal, even if it wasn’t part of a pattern.
Considering him accountable? Well, yes, the buck stops there.
It’s more the “Bush lied, people died” mantra folk who leap on anything that comes up as triumphantly absolute proof that Dubya et al. are out to conquer the world, enslave the US, and get rich off of clear-cutting ANWR who annoys me. Because, of course, only the ANWR stuff is actually true …
I don’t think anything is “triumphantly absolute proof.” But I think there’s a pretty clear pattern that the administration made the decision to invade first, and then manipulated the “evidence” to support that end. (“The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud” quote leaps to mind.)
And the spin has been horrendous. If there really was a good reason to go to war, the spin would have been unnecessary. Two examples: before the war, *always* saying 9/11 in the same sentence as “Iraq” or “Saddam”; and in recent days, the “revisionist historian” label slapped on anyone who questions the administration’s actions or motives. I think it’s the administration that has been playing games with the truth and changing their stories, not the people questioning them now.
Dave, I was talking about the falseness of the Niger claims long ago — this isn’t new. If it’s been in the blogosphere for months, that it’s just making news now isn’t surprising.
NewsMax isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Adam raises many, many valid concerns and observations.
According to the Administration’s OWN people, we went to war due to imminent threats of WMD. Billmon’s timeline (attributable) shows that this was the claim made to take us to war, not humanitarian reasons, not 9/11 — although that was used in a way to seem as though there was a connection.
If Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob, then what’s the punishment for lying about causes for war that have seen 250+ US & US forces killed, over 1,000 wounded, and countless thousands of Iraqis killed and wounded? There has been willful deception by ShrubCo. It’s nice to see the media slowly waking up. (Liberal media, my ass.)
The bogosity of the Niger documents has been open news since March, at least (which is when the IAEA so judged them). The question of whether there was additional intel that also pointed to Iraqi attempts to purchase African uranium, as is still claimed by the British govt — which is, after all, where the SOTU statement points — is still unresolved.
As to NewsMax — as I replied to Adam, I actually looked up the BBC article that they were quoting from, and cited it above. NewsMax was simply a link upon the chain. (Not that the BBC is without bias in its reporting — but usually it’s attributed bias in the opposite direction.)
As to why we went into Iraq, we’ve debated that before. There’s nothing new here, and as yet nothing to establish a “willful deception” except for those who are expecting to find one.
The heat is on.
To quote from that story:
CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.
The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has … sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.
I don’t see this as any additional heat.
Dave
A good timeline with articles on the Niger subject.
Also, Remember, in the Straussian group-think that is in control of the current regime, lying to those whom you govern is a good thing.
I’m not sure that “The Left Coaster” is any more unbiased a source of news than “RightWingNews.”
“Also, Remember, in the Straussian group-think that is in control of the current regime, lying to those whom you govern is a good thing.”
Which, if you accept that premise (the Straussian group-think that is in control of the current regime) simply means you can disregard anything said by anyone in the Adminstration. Which is a convenient way to settle an argument, I suppose.
(One might more cynically argue that, among politicians, it’s hardly necessarily to have “Straussian group-think” in order to have that viewpoint.)
As far as the timeline presented, it’s interesting, as is the linked Howard Dean timeline on the subject. I don’t think either is complete, and (as is generally true of info coming out of DC), both rely heavily on reports (some second-hand) of unnamed/OTR “officials” claiming one thing or another. The major exception to that is Ambassador Wilson’s assertions, and even he can only report factually on what he reported (orally) to the CIA and the State Dept., not what was done with that info after that.
I’m not saying, by the way, that Dubya’s SOTU allegation was on the up-and-up, or that he didn’t shade the truth, or even that it wasn’t all just one big intentional fabrication. But we don’t have anything yet that proves it.
If you want to start from the premise that the Administration is all liars, on this and every other subject, then fine, but I don’t take that as a given (except, as noted, in my more cynical mood swings, and then it’s not just limited to the Bushies).
By “the heat is on,” I meant, it’s a pretty significant development that a major outlet like CBS News is willing to headline its story “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was Dubious.”
Interesting article in the WaPo this morning, that the CIA suggested to UK intelligence that they drop the Iraq/Africa connection, but that the UK maintained (and maintains) that it had further verifying info than they revealed to the US.
(So, one wonders, is Tony Blair a neo-con/Straussian?)
The article also mentions a defense of the reference by Powell (though he did not use that reference in a speech of his own shortly after the SOTU), and some info on the evolution of that reference.
The early drafts of the speech did not include Britain as the source of the information, according to administration officials. A senior official denied that Britain was inserted in the final draft because the CIA and others in the U.S. intelligence community were concerned that the charge could not be supported. The British addition was made only “because they were the first to say it publicly in their September paper,” the official said.
[…] Administration officials preparing drafts of the speech also wanted to name Niger as the focus of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium, according to a senior administration official who has looked into the process. But when CIA officials said there were problems with the Niger information, the more vague reference to Africa was substituted for Niger. The State Department, in its talking points on Iraq, had made a similar change the month before the speech.
Of course, again, the story is (aside from statements by Powell) reliant on unnamed “officials” from various departments, on either side of the various allegations being made.
So what’s your take on this, Dave? Does it smell bad at all to you, or is it just partisan “We Hate Bush” people taking it out on him unfairly? You’re right that we probably will never have incontrovertible truth about what happened. But I think there’s enough out there for most people to decide what they think happened.
On the headline, I don’t think it’s all that significant. Indeed, CBS had originally headlined the story as “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False,” except that wasn’t what the story said.
Further, it’s still not wholly accurate, since (a) it doesn’t directly speak to what Bush knew, as opposed to the NSC or White House staff, but, more importantly, (b) the analysis from the CIA was as quoted above — the CIA wouldn’t yet flatly state that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa (nor that it was not), but UK intelligence would, and that was who was cited in the SOTU speech.
Does that mean the info was “dubious”? Or just “unconfirmed (by American intelligence)”? Granted, the former is a snazzier headline than the latter, but it’s also not as accurate.
That’s not the only CBS headline that might be criticized, by the bye.
Actually I meant the whole situation, not just the CBS story.
Sounds to me like it’s the same Bush haters who repeat the mantra Bush Lied, People Died.
I think it shows a HUGE amount of character that the retraction came from the white house. Infinetly more than the previous occupant of the White House.
As far as most people deciding what happened, I think most people think of it this way: is the world we live in a better place because of action taken by our President? In my opinion, and those people that I talk with, the answer is yes.
Is the world a better place? Well, let’s break it down. The administration used innuendo and false information to lead us into an unprovoked war. Along the way, they trashed alliances that have taken decades to build, forcing the entire world to take sides on our new “with us or against us” foreign policy. Thousands of people died, and continue to die months after “victory” was declared. A tinhorn dictator was deposed, but underlying deep-seated problems in Iraq and the region were untouched or worsened. Local elections were stopped because they would be a “destabilizing force.” We set ourselves up for either a long costly occupation, or a pullout leaving the country more unstable than before the war. A new policy of “the ends justify the means,” however dubious the ends were, has become the conventional wisdom in this country.
Is the world a better place? I say no.
I fear I must disagree with nearly every one of your conclusions, Adam J. The Administration put into action what the previous Administration indicated was essential, and ended a dozen years of prevarication, wobbling, indecisiveness, and general bleating about the globally recognized problem and threat of Iraq. They convinced both the American public and the Congress and the UN Security Council to back them in the effort, both those hapless fools who could be taken in by “innuendo and false information” and those who either had access to top intelligence information in the US, or had their own intelligence agencies to make the judgment. Along the way, they demonstrated that so many of the supposed defense alliances that the US had invested heavily in over the decades were of little or no import to others whose economic or political oxen might be gored. They forced the entire world to decide, after a dozen years to either fish or cut bait. A tiny fraction of the predicted tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties ensued, as the US exercised tremendously more restraint in military action than any other country on record; the number killed is tragic, but in comparison to the number executed or tossed into dungeons in Iraq on a yearly basis, it’s a mercy. In so doing, and in continuing an occupation that strives to both maintain order while not reimposing the terror state that was overthrown, they have been unable to quash some small number of former regime members and other violent radicals who want to either restore the Saddam regime or impose an Islamist one, and have been killing a small number of US troops in their attempts. A bloody tyrant who had invaded his neighbors, used chemical weapons both on neighbors and his own people, and who was willing to let his populace starve while he diverted billions from smuggling and international aid efforts build billions of dollars in palaces, all the while stonewalling the disarmament treaties he had himself signed and the inspectors sent in by the international community to enforce them. As geopolitical threat, madman, supporter of terrorism, and tyrant of the first water, he represented one of the most deep-seated problems in Iraq and the region. A nation-rebuilding effort that took years in places like Germany and Japan is just beginning, after only a few months after the regime was driven out. We have indeed set ourselves up for a long, costly occupation, but given the prospect of another dozen years of leaky embargoes, or whatever worse might have occured, the long-term cost vs the long-term benefit may very well be to the advantage of both the world and the US; at any rate, it is my fervent hope that we stay the course.
As to “the ends justify the means,” if that were true, the war in Iraq, and its aftermath, would have taken a far different course than it did.
Is the world a better place? Yes. Far from ideal, to be sure, but better.
But that’s just my opinion.
This discussion has been draining, to say the least. More and more I’m realizing that there is no common ground left in this country. It’s just not possible. We’re on two different planets. I guess we each just have to fight like hell to try to make sure our vision of this country and the world comes true. In my vision, just for one tiny example, 10,000 dead Iraqi soldiers and 6,000 dead Iraqi civilians, killed in a war against an unprovoking enemy, could never be called a “mercy.”
We can certainily agree that it’s been draining. 🙂
We also agree that we seem to have a fundamental difference of perception on this matter.
I’ll conceded “mercy” was an ill-chosen word (though “unprovoked” has some problems with it as well). I do believe that, on balance, the number of deaths, even this year, with the casualties mentioned, will be far lower in Iraq than they would have been otherwise. If you accept the “50,000 children under 5 each year are killed because of sanctions” argument, and leaving alone those killed (tortured, maimed, imprisoned) outright each year by the former regime, the (still tragic) numbers fall into a different perspective.
At any rate, that’s probably as far as we can go on this at the moment. I do appreciate the effort you’ve put into your side of the discussion (FWIW, my mom found the conversation very interesting, and my wife is probably closer to your opinion than mine). Certainly it’s made me think much harder about the matter — and, hopefully, has not driven me to rhetorical extremes for the sake of “winning.”
Deception
I’m as concerned at the apparent deception as anyone else, but something tells me Howard Dean isn’t as concerned about…
I would recommend, as a sidebar to the issue, a post on the matter from a little different perspective by LT Smash.
And, of course, George Tenet has taken full responsibility for the Sixteen Words of Evil Deception, which either should put the issue to rest or serve as proof of a further cover-up, depending on your PoV.
Because we disagree on the severity of a faux paus in a speech, we share no common ground? I think from other posts that it’s pretty obvious that we do.
I think that it is a mercy, for the people of Iraq at the least, to have a psychotic dictator removed from power. One who thought nothing of using WMD’s against his own people.
The fact that you think this is about “a faux pas in a speech” proves just how far apart we are.
An odd update on the whole “British intelligence” side of things in the Telegraph:
British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.
They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. “He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said ‘no’ he accepted it all,” one official said. “We see no reason at all to change our assessment.”
And, also oddly enough, the French seem to be involved.
Again, the credibility with which you take this depends, I suspect, on what you believe about the whole affair.
Sorry, link to the Telegraph article here.
Two articles on the Iraq Subject.
Oh yeah…this one is entertaining as well.
Looking at the actual Novak story, I’m less than stunned by the
(It’s worth noting that Novak’s reporting on the analysis of Wilson’s trip was (a) it was ordered at a low level, and (b) the results were not immediately considered by the CIA to be significant.)
I’m not sure what the protocol is on CIA matters, but is the status of Wilson’s wife (Novak calls her an “operative,” Time calls her an “official”) an actual state secret, such that “outing” her is some sort of security breach? Is she actually a “undercover CIA officer”? A “deep-cover CIA employee”? Corn doesn’t indicate how he’s determined that.
Novak’s “I’m just a reporter doing my job” defense, if Wilson’s wife really is such a covert sort, is a bit disingenuous.
Of course, again, we have unnamed “administration” officials” (even “senior” ones) as the source of all this. From this, Corn assumes that the White House (i.e., Bush) is engaged in a smear campaign.