White House admits Bush wrong about Iraqi nukes

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 8, 2003

[leftiesareloonie]

After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The acknowledgment came as a British parliamentary commission questioned the reliability of British intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war in Iraq.

Bush said in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.

The president's statement was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledged.

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country." 

[Digger]

Doug Thompson hates George W. Bush's guts.

He sure does from what I remember in the past. In fact, I thought when he closed it down for some time that it was over.

[Russell Scott]

All I know is the most corrupt piece of human scum is a nothing but ashes blowing across the Arab desert, and the Iraqi people are on the road to freedom. Thank you President Bush.

[Redbob]

Do you still call it a "lie" when Bush was misled? Although you could say it was the very depths of stupidity to believe anything turned up by British "intelligence!"

[alnick]

You forgot that Bush crashed those planes into the buildings via remote control. :-)

[Matchett-PI]

Rush dealt with this issue today and what he had to say about it will probably be on his web site later today after it is updated to reflect today's program.

Hannity is talking about it at this very moment on his radio show. [3:20 PM EDT]

[William McKinley]

It's ignoring the intelligence and going with his gut and then

Provide some proof that what this guy [Terrance J. Wilkinson] claims actually happened.

[leftiesareloonie]

Are you really saying it wouldn't bother you at all if the worst that Bush's critics have to say about the lead-up to war was true?

Supposed he lied, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and suppose that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11. Are you saying you wouldn't care, since Saddam was a bad guy anyway and deserved to be offed. No matter the mendaciousness of the public justification given by the president for the war.


I just want to know where you stand.

[leftiesareloonie]

You're asking me to prove that Wilkinson is not a liar?

Why?

I don't get it.

[zarf]

Depends on what the word "lie" means. I mean, there are so many shades of gray. Besides that, it's very old news and we need to get the country moving again.....child safety seats and all....ya know...

[Steel Wolf]

Exactly. We're talking about intelligence, not evidence. That can be a combination of what one guy thought he overheard, what another paid some guy to tell, and what yet another thought he saw in a grainy photograph. It's just a collection of unprovable indicators.

[Steve_Seattle]

In my opinion, the "quote" provided by Wilkinson doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't sound like Bush. But above all, the vague intelligence report from Africa was hardly a major factor in the decision to go to war, which was primarily based on the 12-year-long charade with inspections and sanctions, unaccounted for weapons stocks, and ongoing discoveries like the banned Iraqi missiles discovered as recently as January of this year, not to mention Saddam's record of aggression and human-rights abuses. However, those who are seriously concerned about investigating exaggerated claims for war can go into FR's archives and look up Kosovo. The exaggerated claims of "genocide" in that case did not bother most - if any - Democrats, nor did they lead to a "Watergate" for Clinton.

[Steve_Seattle]

The last issue of National Review had a good article detailing the links between Saddam and terrorism, links discovered both before and after the war. Regarding the WMD issue, I should remind you that - going back to the Clinton administration - there was a bipartisan consensus that Saddam had WMD's or the ability to make them, was not being forthright with inspectors, and posed a threat to the USA. The debate was over what to do about this state of affairs, not whether Saddam had WMD's.

[leftiesareloonie]

I don't see the point of your reminders. What's that got to do with what this thread is about?

[Iowa Granny]

The president's statement was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledged

The President did not lie. The President was lied to, and he passed the information on, assuming it was a trustworthy source.

Some people enjoy stirring the S#i+. I suspect you are one of them.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Supposed he lied, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam and suppose that Saddam had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11. Are you saying you wouldn't care, since Saddam was a bad guy anyway and deserved to be offed. No matter the mendaciousness of the public justification given by the president for the war."

My comment was a reply to this comment of yours (above). My comments seems pertinent both to your post and to the thread as a whole.

[Steel Wolf]

No, the Pentagon was attacked by ... the Pentagon. (They had help from the Mossad, of course). A very respectable Frenchman by the name of Jacques something or other wrote a book about the whole conspiracy, right before he OD'd on crack. (or was killed by the CIA).

Bush knew, of course, and he did nothing. It was because of the oil.

[William McKinley]

You are presenting his words as fact. You are suggesting that there could and possibly should be some ramifications based upon his words. As such, establishing the credibility of his words is pretty salient.

Also, it is a single source. As a conservative, experience has taught me to be skeptical of a single source for any testimony. It makes me want to evaluate the veracity of the source.

Interesting thing though. I have searched, and it does not appear that there even exists a "Terrance J. Wilkinson" or a "Terrence J. Wilkinson", at least that has appeared on the web prior to this article. Searching recent news for Terrence Wilkinson or Terrance Wilkinson does not show anything of note either.

There is a Terrence (not Terrance) Wilkinson, who graduated from Paul Smith's College of the Adirondaks in 1977, but he lives in Illinois.

In other words, I am openly questioning three things:

1) I doubt highly that Bush said what the article quotes 'Wilkinson' as asserting,

2) I doubt there is a CIA advisor named Terrance J. Wilkinson, and

3) I suspect highly that the author of this piece engaged in some creative writing.

[meenie]

Where the problem arises is, Wikinson was sent to investigate the report, and spent two weeks investigating. He found that uranium exports were controlled by two commissions who oversaw all exports of uranium.

There was no way for the two uranium mines to get ore out of the country without having it inspected. He was sent by members of Cheney's team and delivered his report to them when he returned from Africa.

The forged document in question was signed by a person in authority that had been out of office for ten years. The question has never been answered as to who made up the forgery but it was supposed to be gotten from Israeli intelligence.

This was in the British newspapers. Bush and Blair pushed the envelope as far as possible to justify the attack on Iraq. I suppose they were hopeful that weapons would be found.

The whole thing smells of intelligence and counter-intelligence with the leaders of two countries picking and choosing the bits of intelligence that suited their purpose.

[usedtolurk]

I think you are referring to former Ambassador Joe Wilson, not the Wilkinson in this article.

[ravingnutter]

Hmmmm....

A cable classified "secret" went out from CIA headquarters to the White House Situation Room in March 2002 reporting on a visit to the African country of Niger by a retired diplomat on a special mission for the CIA. The envoy, whose name has not been disclosed, was investigating allied intelligence reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from that country. His account said Iraq had sought closer economic ties with Niger but had not discussed a uranium sale.

The original intelligence reports were based on documents that were shown after Bush's speech to be crude forgeries. But at the time, they raised alarms in the Bush administration that Iraq was acquiring the ingredients for a nuclear weapon. In his January speech, Bush cited British accounts of Iraq's attempt to buy uranium among other tell-tale signs and said that "Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the CIA report on the envoy's trip lacked details that would have warned the White House that the uranium-buying allegations were suspect. This failure, the article suggested, may have helped lead Bush to repeat the allegations long after U.S. intelligence had determined that they were groundless.

USA Today