Would that be this?
Tenet made a 4½-hour closed-door appearance Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, again accepting responsibility for the lapse. But that did not satisfy Democrats.
"All roads still lead back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said, referring to the White House address. "The question is, who in the White House was so determined to put information in the State of the Union which had been discounted so dramatically by American intelligence sources?"
That skepticism will likely be fueled by claims of some U.S. officials that the CIA didn't receive the Niger documents until February 2003, nearly a year after the agency first began investigating the alleged Iraq-Africa connection.
Even as the CIA found little to verify the reports, Bush administration officials repeatedly tried to put them into public statements. Sometimes the CIA succeeded in getting the information removed.
Without the source documents, the CIA could investigate only their substance, which it had learned from a foreign government around the beginning of 2002. One of the key allegations was that Iraq was soliciting uranium from the African country of Niger.
When the Niger claim first arose, the CIA sent a retired diplomat to Africa to investigate in February 2002. The diplomat, Joseph Wilson, reported finding no credible evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.
Tenet said the CIA was unaware of any documents purporting to show such transactions at the time, and it is unclear when the U.S. government learned that the documents existed and were the source of the Niger claim.
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
Q Scott, this morning when Senator Durbin's statement was read to you, you said, that characterization is "nonsense." Just to cross a t, dot an i, were you saying that Director Tenet did not say this, or were you saying that there is no such White House official?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think what he was suggesting -- again, this goes to -- I'm very glad you pointed out Senator Durbin, because he was one of the few in the minority who opposed the steps that we took. Again, an overwhelming, bipartisan Congress voted to support the action that we took. And the United Nations Security Council made it very clear this was a final opportunity for Saddam Hussein to comply. If we had waited, who knows what position we'd be in now. But the Iraqi people are better off for this. And I'm sorry, I'm not -- the first part of your question?
Q Just the grammar of it. When you said, that's "nonsense," were you saying --
MR. McCLELLAN: It's nonsense to suggest that someone was pressuring to put this in there, or anything of that nature.
Q Okay, so are you also saying that Director Tenet did not say that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can't -- Director Tenet did not say what? I mean, I think you have to ask Director Tenet what he said.
Q Senator Durbin said --
MR. McCLELLAN: Senator Durbin is putting words in someone else's mouth and trying to characterize it in a way that I think is just nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. And I think you have to look at the reason why he was making those comments. I mean, maybe he's going back, trying to justify his own vote against taking action, against addressing the threats that we face. And now look at Iraq, look at the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq are liberated from a brutal, oppressive regime. Look at Saddam Hussein. He is gone from power. He is no longer a threat to the region, to his people, or to the world. And he is no longer a threat to America. His weapons of mass destruction, he cannot use his weapons of mass destruction.
And it's very important to point out that when we talk about this, we're talking about a region of instability and a region that has led to terrorism, the Middle East. And a peaceful and secure and democratic Iraq is going to help bring about a peaceful and stable Middle East. And that's very important.
Thanks