Posted on 10/02/2004 9:43:55 PM PDT by ambrose
Bush Aides Gave One-Sided View of Iraqi Data -- NYT
October 2, 2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Bush administration officials, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, gave a one-sided view of the case for believing Saddam Hussein had a nuclear arms program that ignored the doubts of their own experts, the New York Times said on Saturday.
The newspaper made the charge in an article about thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes ordered by Iraq that leading administration officials said were intended for use in uranium centrifuges.
"As the only physical evidence the United States could brandish of (Saddam's) revived nuclear ambitions, they gave credibility to the apocalyptic imagery invoked by President Bush and his advisers," said the article on the newspaper's Web site.
It referred to remarks by national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in September 2002 in which she said the tubes, a shipment of which were intercepted in Jordan in June 2001, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."
The paper said that before she made the remarks, "she was aware that the government's foremost nuclear experts had concluded that the tubes were most likely not for nuclear weapons at all."
It said the Energy Department experts believed the tubes were probably intended for small artillery rockets, as Iraq itself maintained.
"Senior administration officials repeatedly failed to fully disclose the contrary views of America's leading nuclear scientists," the Times said, citing Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell by name.
"They sometimes overstated even the most dire intelligence assessments of the tubes, yet minimized or rejected the strong doubts of their own experts. They worried privately that the nuclear case was weak, but expressed sober certitude in public.
"The result was a largely one-sided presentation to the public that did not convey the depth of evidence and argument against the administration's most tangible proof of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq," the paper said.
A White House spokeswoman had no immediate comment.
But the campaign of Democratic presidential contender John Kerry jumped on the report, issuing an ad that said: "Here's something new about George Bush -- newspapers report he withheld key intelligence information from the American public so he could overstate the threat Iraq posed. Bush rushed to war. We're paying the price. It's time for a fresh start."
The times story said the theory that the tubes were intended for a centrifuge was largely promoted by one analyst at the CIA, a relatively junior staffer who had a background in mechanical engineering and operating U.S. centrifuges.
President Bush has cited Iraq's purported cache of weapons of mass destruction as the reason for deposing Saddam. No weapons have been found.
The "Bush lied!" thing would be cute if everyone who adhered to it didn't swarm like flies around sh!t.
Here come the attacks, they know Kerry F***** up with his global vote statement and Bush is going to pound on him.
And this is news? We all heard the "tubes were inappropriate for centifuge" story a year ago. Now the Times is recycling old news to make the President look bad. A little "in kind" contribution to the Kerry Campaign from the editorial board.
Still beating this dead horse hmmmm? Let's see, I wonder if the NYT would of run this headline.
Clinton Aides give onesided view of Impeachment.
Kerry Aides give onesided view of Kerry's Iraq position.
New York Times Editors give onesided view of Iraq war.
NO, but we do get this sort of childish garbage. F- Reuters and NYTimes. This story wouldn't of gotten by a High School Newspaper editor. It is this sort of story that exposes the "News Media" as the Democrat National Comittee whores they are.
oh, there will tons of recycled stories from the MSM.
The timing of this Old News is no coincidence in the NYT or Saudi owned Reuter's here. Expect more as election day nears.
As if Reuters ever released even handed articles about Republicans.
Saddam was put on the list of "Things to Do" on September 12th, 2001 and justifiably so. The useless leftist wanna be Ambassadors at the U.N. could not and would not enforce a single one of their 17 worthless Resolutions that threatened Saddam Hussein for violating the armistice Saddam agreed to in 1991.
This is the biggest issue the left has against our President and most Americans no George W. Bush did the right thing in removing Saddam Hussein.
All I can say is Luck the Fiberals
Are these the same experts that were all over the threat that bin Laden posed? (And this isn't news at all, I remember Powell saying that there wasn't conclusive evidence.)
Just in time to use it against Cheney in the Veep debate. These people are so damn predictable.
I swear I didn't see your comment:
"Just in time to use it against Cheney in the Veep debate. These people are so damn predictable."
It was my first reaction.
Ummmm .. Didn't Kerry also say that we should give iran nuclear fuel ??
There, that is better. They really should hire some fact checkers at the paper, these little errors are embarrassing.
Why yes, I believe he did.
Lets see here.... Clinton gave him the Nuclear Reactors, and Kerry says he wants to give them the Nuclear Fuel......
Maybe Edwards would like to give them the ICBM's?
LOL I confused Iran with North Korea
It's ok .. I think Kerry's best buds the French helped with both
It's probably old news to everyone reading this, but WMD was found in a roadside bomb (Sarin gas). This isn't really important, though; what matters is that Iran has a fledgling Democracy to the Southeast and one to the West of them. The Iranian and Syrian regimes fear (and rightly so) that they are next. Terrorists are coming to Iraq to die and, as much as possible, to kill and destroy. They are coming from Iran and Syria. If Bush hadn't attacked Iraq, terrorists would have one more vacation spot and one less mission. As it stands, the U. S. can attack Iran from 2 directions, if Iran wishes to play chicken with the President. It's comical when liberals talk about what an idiot President Bush is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.