Bush Aide Takes Blame for Iraq Uranium Flap

Reuters ^ | July 22, 2003

[Timesink]

Bush Aide Takes Blame for Iraq Uranium Flap

Tue July 22, 2003 05:32 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's number two national security aide on Tuesday took blame for a controversy over charges Iraq tried to buy African uranium, saying the CIA had warned him earlier that intelligence cited by Bush was suspect.

Stephen Hadley, deputy national security adviser, said he should have deleted a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy African uranium from Bush's State of the Union speech in January, because the CIA had asked him to remove similar language from an October speech by the president.

"It is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility," Hadley told reporters. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush retained confidence in Hadley and the rest of his national security team.

[Cyber Liberty]

Personally, I'm hoping it's a trick, and they're falling for it.

[BOBTHENAILER]

"They're here... They're queer... AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STOP IT!!!" How's that for poetic, bob?

I hereby nominate you for Freeper poet laureate.

[dalebert]

I agree. I think I might have had something to do with it also. The press is very sick if they think 16 words in part of a statement means this much. I am also tired of hearing about sicko nut basketball players.

[GraniteStateConservative]

So, JR, what do you think the shelf life is on this story?

[oceanview]

The British intel is correct, the last piece in question (the false documents) were planted by the french as a poison pill to discredit the whole story. That's why the Brits are standing by the story, even while admitting the last piece of intel was "incorrect". Instead of all these mea culpas, the administration should just lay out the truth. Let's see if Gilligan resigns in the next few days.

[lawdude]

Hey...Dub...Dubya...STFU.

[Joy Angela]

Has anyone noticed that Hillary is building Anti-American sentiment as she gathers Campaign Donations across Europe??

Hillary Rodham "I will take down America" Clinton is becoming TOO Obvious!!

It's time for the Senate to stand in unison against
Hillary and brand her a TRAITOR and court-marshall her!!

Hillary is preaching "Down with the USA, Up with the U.N!" and the slithering slime that hates America is gleefully filling Hillary's pockets with silver!!

We, mere Americans, will have little or no say in the 2004 election, thanks to McCains Campaign Finance Reform Act!

And Hillary and Bill Clinton have already learned that MONEY buys elections and in 92 & 96 when they turned to Communist China for their "offerings!!"

In 2004... Socialist Europe is now ready to "spare the change" to bring change to America via Hillary and her Globalist-Call!

Hillary Clinton is actively trying to destroy the United States and is encouraging our enemies against us! Just like Bill Clinton encouraged Saddam Hussein and Bin Ladin and brought the horror of 9-11 to our people!

The Conspiring Clintons
#1 Enemy Within!!

Are we Awake?

Do we SEE what this MADWOMAN is doing??

[AntiGuv]

Well, I've posted this a couple times previously:

This trivial concern has legs because it's a proxy attack channeling much deeper issues: the general discontent about the failure to produce convincing evidence of the WMD arsenal. And, the media/dnc has already lined up the next phase for whenever this one calms down, and are no doubt working on at least one or two more to push into the forefront after that...

As I've noted a few times, fixating on defending the trivial concern of the day is an exercise in futility so long as the WMDs aren't presented/explained to the public, because until that happens the real issue cannot get addressed. Meanwhile, the media/dnc will be going through every word in speeches & documents with a fine-toothed comb, lining up the next attack.

The uranium claim controversy itself probably has a shelf life of at least another week, because it's been in the media rotation for 15 days now and it takes two to three weeks before one may legitimately assess the approval ratings impact. The media and the democrats will near certainly keep this one live until at least another cycle of polls following that two week mark. Depending on interim developments, they may continue to push this avenue or switch to another - the 45 minute claim appears due next, although I've identified at least a half dozen statements open to attack.

Moreover, it's important to keep in mind that the DNC will want to time the major broadsides for this autumn and next spring, so the key objective of this interim buildup is simply to undermine GWB's trust factor. The timing of the Iraq report due some five or six months from now will be critical, depending on whatever that reveals. Assuming that it's perceived as a vindication of Bush, then this will simply serve to undermine his standing so as to minimize whatever bounce. Assuming it's perceived as a further indictment of Bush, then this will simply serve as a prelude to the subsequent controversy.

Whatever the case, the intention is to kneecap the administration long enough so that the economy may once again take the forefront. This isn't meant to bury Bush, but rather to negate any benefit from the Iraq campaign and/or the overall War on Terror. So long as the administration is encumbered with this issue, it undermines their ability to leverage other major issues/policies into the forefront. Note by example the general dismissal with which a drumbeat of statements regarding Iran & Syria have been met, since the administration cannot advance a credible policy in the context of these Iraq questions.

It also creates an emphasis shift from the positive aspects of the Iraq reconstruction to the negative. If the justification for war were impervious to dispute, then the emphasis would remain on the ultimate outcome. So long as the very rationale for our being there is questioned, then the emphasis shifts toward the interim difficulties. Much will depend on whatever the ultimate consensus appears regarding the whole WMD justification, as well as the progress made toward stabilizing Iraq overall. Again, this is primarily designed to submerge as much as possible any positive Iraq-related coverage, by tying up media with negative controversy.

[savedbygrace]

OK, I will if you will.

[hoosiermama]

Maybe so more dems'll step in it! When the truth comes out "they'll be done in"!

[jethropalerobber]

they still haunt your dreams, do they?

[Corin Stormhands]

I'd be willing to bet Dantompeteretal will spend more time spinning how Bush found a subordinate to take the fall for HIS lie!

That's the first thing a liberal co-worker said to me this a.m. I asked her "where did you hear the story?" Her answer: "CNN and the Today Show."

Oh.

[berserker]

The buck in this administration stops here:

U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is shown in Moscow in this May 11, 2001, file photo. On Tuesday, July 22, 2003, Hadley became the second administration official to apologize for allowing a tainted intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions into President Bush's State of the Union address. (AP Photo/Maxim Marmur, File)

[Betty Jo]

Hadley was in the first Bush admin.

He is heavy into nukes and star wars and such.

He was with the Scowcroft group.

He aint no babe in the woods.

Nukes is him.

No way in hell did he forget.

I'll just keep searching,because this, for some reason, is bigger than 16 words.

[aristeides]

According to John Loftus on the Batchelor & Alexander show, the genuine intel was obtained in a joint Brit-Italian black bag job on the Niger embassy in Rome. (I suspect there is also interception and decryption of communications involved.) Because governments don't like to admit that sort of stuff, they're not likely to admit it here. If it were just the U.S. government involved, maybe they would. But here there are other governments involved, making the whole thing much more complicated.

[jagrmeister]

Anyone notice how the liberal media keeps this story alive by publishing a "new" article every day featuring a different Democrat criticizing the President. Today, Kerry criticizes Bush. Tomorrow, Edwards criticizes Bush. They all say the same thing- there is no "news". There was an article "Kucinich criticizes Bush"- for crying out loud, when did anyone care what Dennis Kucinich thought? Just a convenient way for liberal journalists to launder their opinions through all-too-willing Democratic allies on the Hill.

[ChadGore]

Re: It's not going to matter what Bush accomplishes in Iraq, he's going to be attacked by the liberals.

. .and those liberals will be helped by you when you forward their arguments.

[Joy Angela]

I believe in America.

And I love Freedom.

YES, the Clintons are the
Ultimate Nightmare.

[Betty Jo]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/951360/posts?page=19

See my replies # 16 and # 29