Lies, lies everywhere is lies

[khaosworks]

President Defends Allegation On Iraq
Bush Says CIA's Doubts Followed Jan. 28 Address

By Dana Priest and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 15, 2003; Page A01

President Bush yesterday defended the "darn good" intelligence he receives, continuing to stand behind a disputed allegation about Iraq's nuclear ambitions as new evidence surfaced indicating the administration had early warning that the charge could be false.

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.

I've decided that Dubya believes we're living in a comic book universe and he's an editor, because this is one of the more blatant retcons I've ever seen and surely grants him the term revisionist historian. Hey! George! We remember! Our short-term memory isn't that fucked up!

In the face of persistent questioning about the use of intelligence before the Iraq war, administration officials have responded with evolving and sometimes contradictory statements. The matter has become increasingly charged, as Democrats demand hearings about Bush's broader use of intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

The president's remarks yesterday came as evidence emerged that the administration had information that seemed to guarantee that Iraq probably could not acquire nuclear material from Niger. A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House.

A spokesman for Myers said last night that the general has "no recollection of the information" but did not doubt that it had been forwarded to him. "Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects," said Capt. Frank Thorp, the chairman's spokesman.

In an interview, Fulford said he came away "assured" that the supply of "yellowcake" was kept secure by a French consortium. Both Fulford, then deputy commander of the U.S. European Command and his commander, Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, said the issue did not surface again, although they were both routinely briefed on weapons proliferation in Africa. "I was convinced it was not an issue," Fulford said.

Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.

Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.

The charge that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material in Africa was based mainly on documents that the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded this March were forged. Before an October 2002 speech by Bush, the CIA succeeded in removing a reference to an Iraq-Niger connection because of doubts about the intelligence.

The charge was revived for the State of the Union speech in January but referred to Africa generally and attributed the information to the British, even though the CIA had expressed reservations to the British about including some of the information in its public dossier on Iraq.

In that speech, Bush stated: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

On Friday, Bush and top aides said the CIA approved the inclusion of those words, and CIA Director George J. Tenet took responsibility. Yet Bush aides have argued in recent days that the statement may, in fact, prove to be correct. Officials said Sunday the British had sources other than the forged documents, but they have declined to reveal them.

This is why the official story about the CIA going "whoops, sorry, we missed that sentence" isn't convincing. They're trying to tell us that they managed to remove the reference in the October 8 2002 speech, but couldn't take the same care and consideration for the State of the Union, which is a much more political significant speech? Pull the other one, please. Again, it boils down to your choice of malice, recklessness or incompetence. Any of these scenarios aren't pretty.

Yesterday Bush defended the charge as he fielded questions after a meeting in the Oval Office with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence," he said. "And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

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."

As pointed out before, the question was never just about Sadaam Hussein was developing or had developed a program of weapons of mass destruction - what the neocons were pushing to us were the fact that Sadaam had WMDs. Now. Ready to deploy. Within 45 minutes. That clear and present danger was why we couldn't wait for inspections and had to strike immediately.

Also, poor Ari must be getting out of the loop in his last days in office, because now the Press Secretary and the Communications Director can't even keep their stories straight about whether Dubya is pissed or not. This would never happen with CJ and Toby.

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."

The change included using British intelligence as the source of the information. The CIA, however, continued to doubt the reliability of the British claim.

And the edifice continues to crumble. I am disappointed in the neocons because they aren't particularly good liars even when they want to be. I faced defendants who were letter perfect in their stories until they were cross-examined, and then you saw the cracks beginning to show, and if the counsel was skillful enough, by the end their previously pristine stories were in crumbled ruins.

One of the things I've learned from years of litigation is that lies need to be simple, they need to be compact, and the best lies are those that are unverifiable by anybody else except yourself. The simple reason why truth is always stronger than lie is because truth is based on objective, verifiable reality. Now, philosophical questions about empiricism aside, the practical reality of the matter is that history - particularly recent history - doesn't change all that much. Allowing for differences in perception, the main bulk of reality is unassailable. People may see a bad tackle in a football match from any number of points of view, but they can all agree on some things - the man went down, and the referee made a call. Eventually lies will crumble because they don't have this solid foundation of reality beneath them. Contradict them at one point, they have to invent a new lie to prop up the old one, and sooner or later they run out of prefabricated excuses and have to make up new ones on the fly, which are invariably weaker than the prefab ones. And soon, if you know where to push, it all falls down in a cloud of contradictions.

The Bush Adminstration, with its contradictions here and there, is acting exactly like a defendant on the ropes, desperately trying to come up with plausible explanations on the fly, and not remembering that what they're saying now is contradicting what they said earlier. Say it out, say it loud. They're not just contradictions.

They're lies.

Comments

[folkmew.livejournal.com]

Yes, the appalling state of our government is forcing me to crawl out of the hole of apathetic distracted self absorbtion in my own problems (like how I'm going to buy food for the family) and become political. Of course that's partly because I am amazed at the pathetic state of the economy as well which I blame at least in part upon the current administration.

Well - at least our goverment is giving you plenty to post about eh? sigh..............

[filkerdave.livejournal.com]

These are the best times to listen to conservative talk radio as they try and come up with ways to defend Bush.

Look for stuff about the Clintons to start being said.

[dietbubba.livejournal.com]

You hit the nail right on the head. I figure by the end of the week the language in the state of the union will somehow be blamed on Clinton's penis.

When all else fails, blame Clinton and his penis.

groovy

[opadit.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the recent links and commentary. I appreciate it.