PDA

View Full Version : Wash Post: CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.


zimv20
Jul 13, 2003, 01:32 AM
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48847-2003Jul12.html?nav=hptop_tb)


CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.

Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official.



The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.


the plot thickens. seems more likely now that tenet is just the fall guy.

Ugg
Jul 13, 2003, 02:15 AM
What a tangled web! Blair is still claiming that "other" evidence exists to back up the claim but none has yet been shared with the public.

abdul
Jul 13, 2003, 06:36 AM
what i find funny is that the americans have type of admitted that the uranium 'thing' was unfounded, the Australian PM apologised to the parliament about giving exagerrated/false information about Iraq.......BUT the British still stick by their claim saying that they had intelligence that no-one else had access to. Firstly i think that doesnt pump confidence into the JIT as well as British inteligence level is extremely poor.......GOD what happened to Bond and the MI6/ MI7

abdul
Jul 13, 2003, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by Ugg
What a tangled web! Blair is still claiming that "other" evidence exists to back up the claim but none has yet been shared with the public.

i rea;lly hope that this really harms the Labour Party, especially Blair (that uis coming from a socialist). I think Charles Kennedy from the Lib Dems is the only politician that asked for a potential find/ second resolution rather that run into the situation blind.

i also hope this actually reduces the power of the British in the EU as well as the other new contries that are joining that were part of the coalition of the bribed.

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE SPANISH PM IS SAYING? he was always somewhere on the news standing with B/B before the war, as well as his country was really against the war

SPG
Jul 13, 2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by abdul
the British still stick by their claim saying that they had intelligence that no-one else had access to.

I think that the intelligence they are referring to is from the US, the claim that Iraq sought nuclear materials. It is circular logic and as long as nobody reveals their unnamed sources they hope it will hold.

SPG
Jul 14, 2003, 01:43 AM
Excellent analysis of why the statement about the uranium matters...
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/001650.html

zimv20
Jul 17, 2003, 11:57 PM
we finally have a name for the person who insisted the reference to the fake doc stay in the SOTU:


Senior CIA officials told a closed Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday that, before Bush gave the speech, they discussed the reliability of intelligence about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium in Africa with National Security Council aide Robert Joseph, according to two senior U.S. officials. Joseph, a top aide to Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, coordinates policies to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.



Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and an Intelligence Committee member, said Thursday on ABC News that Tenet told the committee that a White House official - whom Durbin didn't identify - was "insistent" that the uranium reference be in Bush's address. Later, two U.S. officials confirmed to Knight Ridder that Joseph was the White House aide Durbin described.

That alleged push from Joseph puts a different light on the controversial allegation, distinct from Bush's emphasis last Friday, when the president stressed that the CIA had approved the wording of his speech


link (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6327528.htm)

mcrain
Jul 18, 2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
we finally have a name for the person who insisted the reference to the fake doc stay in the SOTU

"YOU WILL DO WHAT WE TELL YOU TO DO." You do what we told you to do. "Well, they did it, therefore, we are not responsible!"

Interesting logic.

zimv20
Jul 22, 2003, 05:48 PM
hey! a new scapegoat! now it's steven hadley. i'm getting dizzy. it's said that bush still has confidence in mr. hadley, he is not asking for his resignation, and he considers the matter closed. again.

3rdpath
Jul 22, 2003, 11:58 PM
i see the strategy...if enough people take the blame...no one can truly be responsible.

it's so interesting that tenet said it was his fault for not notifying the wh. about the misleading info.

now that there is proof that the wh was notified in october...hadley is next in line to take the fall. it seems such a large stretch that info of this magnitude wasn't relayed to rice. i find that very hard to believe.

anyone else notice that bit by bit the story is moving to right where james wilson stated in his original expose? wilson said that not only did the cia have the info but so did cheney's task force.

like a fire jumping a break, the flames have now landed on the lawn of the whitehouse.

bond003
Jul 23, 2003, 12:03 AM
This is such a non story. I am confused why you all seem to think that this one issue puts Bush in a bad light. Most here do not appear to support the war in the first place.

zimv20
Jul 23, 2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by bond003
This is such a non story. I am confused why you all seem to think that this one issue puts Bush in a bad light. Most here do not appear to support the war in the first place.

yeah, it was just a piece of tape on a door. what's the big deal?

oops -- wrong scandal.

3rdpath
Jul 23, 2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by bond003
This is such a non story.

cnn, fox, msnbc and probably every major publication at the newstand tomorrow will beg to differ.

if you don't see the significance...there ya go.