Purchase a mirror!
Answer from Dumbass: "I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!"
Posted on 09/29/2003 5:34:27 PM PDT by Dog
Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 July, 2003, 06:31 GMT 07:31 UK
White House 'warned over Iraq claim'
The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.
Uranium row in quotes But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.
Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.
And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence.
Forged documents
In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
But the documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information.
"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger," Mr Fleischer said.
"So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
President George W Bush
Mr Bush's State of the Union address But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.
Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.
That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false.
In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day.
The official said there was no evidence that this specific cable about uranium had been passed on to the president.
But in Congress, Democrats are demanding a full investigation into the intelligence that underpinned the case for war.
They have demanded to know if President Bush used evidence that he knew to be weak or wrong.
British undeterred
The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.
On Tuesday Mr Blair defended the assessment, telling a committee of MPs that it was not a "fantasy" and that the intelligence services themselves stood by the allegation.
"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.
However, Mr Blair did not specify what that separate intelligence was.
I think the Bush Administration is behind this request for an investigation, How better to get to the truth than an open investigation into all involved, form the CIA, STATE DEPT and the White House, including Phone records, for the White House and Joseph Wilson's contacts to the CIA and State Dept. and Wilson's wife's records
I've been entertaining this notion as well. This whole thing is a put up, manufactured by the accusers. The quicker an investigation is conducted the quicker they'll be exposed.
From the original BBC piece
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.
This is a flat out false statement. Wilson, the "US diplomat," hadn't "established the claim was false" because he didn't find any evidence. That is his evidence, that he couldn't find evidence. It's a shame that they don't teach logic in school anymore. There is a basic tenet of logic:
"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
He didn't prove it was true because he couldn't find any corroboration. He took that to prove that it was false, but that's an idiotic position. It might mean that the story is false. It might mean that he's a lousy investigator. It might mean that he didn't want find evidence and had formed his conclusions before he went to Niger. There is far more evidence to support this last theory than to support his proposition that the claim was false.
I'd love to find calls from Carville or one of the Clinton's to Wilson at interesting times. I'd really expect to find some Clintonista DNA all over this. That being said, the other notion I've been floating is that Wilson or his wife will be found dead soon with the resulting hew and cry for someone's head in the administration for having "outed" them being the cause of the arkancide.
This bears the hallmarks of a staged operation. In fact, it is following the same script as the BBC "sexed up report" so called scandal. I bet you that some ex KGB guys are running both of these from one playbook. Now, where's the money coming from to fund this? Sounds like something Soro's might fund for his friends in the dim party.
Not an hour ago, I listened to O'Reilly interviewing Gephardt (not sure if it was live though), who said that George Tenet told him to his face that Saddam had the weapons. What's with the beeb, or need I ask?
A couple of observations regarding the Beeb's report and "the CIA official".
1. The "claim" was NOT proven false in March 2002. It was a set of documents which appeared to support the claim were proven forged in March. This development was widely reported in the press. It was NOT kept a secret. But the British intelligence report which also supported the claim was not based on these documents and the Brits still stand behind it.
2. Recall the Capitol Hill Blue fiasco involving Doug Thompson -- who wrote a piece condemning Bush for having refused to accept what appears to have been Wilson's report. Then, he had to retract when his source, thanks the efforts of FReeper William McKinley, proved to be either a.) a fictitious identity or b.) a figment of his own fevered imagination. Now, would it surprise anybody on this board if the Thompson source was either Wilson himself or his wife?
Perhaps, we ought to resurrect the CHB articles and their threads in connection with this latest development.
That's because Wilson never wrote one .. he even stated so himself
Purchase a mirror!
Answer from Dumbass: "I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!"
stage managed to a fair the well. Thing is, if we're right, they're being a little too cute. It takes too many people to pull this off. If it falls apart it will fall apart big time. If our speculations are correct in any significant particulars watch for some folks to be wearing orange jump suits (if not being hauled off to Gitmo).
The frightening part is that this may be an all or nothing gamble. If the dims, particularly the Clintonistas, have read the tea leaves and see Bush getting re-elected they might be really desperate. Desperate enough to try this kind of gambit. Desperate enough that if they're found out they might feel that they have nothing left to lose.
"Always leave your enemy an avenue of escape. An enemy cornered fights on Death Ground" -Sun Tzu, The Art of War
they may already see themselves on Death Ground.
Then you missed the whole point.
So he wasn't asked...he didn't report...hell, he didn't even do any fact finding except ask a few polite questions while sipping tea.
This house of cards has GOT to fall.
But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.Magnificent highlights, Dog. This is all one need know about this article. A "CIA official" out to get the President?
Oh my!
Do you realize that in this case the "Evil Party" is BUSH'S OWN CIA!!! There are agents within our own intelligence services which may as well be spies for North Korea or he Saudis. They are working feverishly to undermine our government. I also am deeply suspicious regarding the loyalty of George Tenet--a Clinton appointee who should have been fired after 9/11.
Superb catch and reasoning, Dog. This story has "plant for future 'outrage' development by Dems" written all over it. Of course, none of this would matter if our guys had found WMD in Iraq. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that none have been found is a monumental CIA, and specifically George Tenent's, failure.
I know this President both values and practices loyalty, but I don't believe Tenent has served him at all well. Failure to catch Mullah Omar; failure to catch Osama bin Laden; failure to catch Saddam Hussein (after TWICE convincing the President to order air strikes because Tenent said the CIA "knew" where Hussein was); failure to have a much better handle on the WMD. Now a failure of Tenent to come out and clarify once and for all if Mrs. Wilson is just an analyst or a former agent.
As I type this, it is 9:18pm on the West Coast. The truth that the White House did not call Novak to leak her identity has been known since midday, yet local news and talk radio keep telling the story without that information. They keep saying the Dems want a special counsel. Of course they do — for political reasons to smear this President as we go into the election season, not because they really believe there's any merit to this story. After all, someone on the Dem side invented the story. The Dems and their media shills will keep flogging this particular dead horse no matter what the truth as long as there is political mileage to be gained. I could not despise them more if I tried. Grrr...
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.