CBS: Bush knew uranium story was false

[Arnold_Winkelried]

december, I deleted your quote on the previous page. I did a word count comparing what you posted to the original article, and you posted more than 20% of the original. Let me remind you that our guidelines say:
FAQ - guidelines for posting at the SDMB

[quote]
At the Straight Dope Message Board, being a message board based on a series of books and newspaper columns, we encourage the respect of copyright law. The rules of the Straight Dope Message Board are enforced by volunteer moderators who are not all legal experts in these matters. So we offer a set of guidelines that may be more conservative or stringent than the law in your jurisdiction, but that we think may help avoid the copyright violation issue. In this as in many other matters we depend not only on moderator enforcement, but also ask for the cooperation and goodwill of our posters.

Suggested guidelines:
[list=A]
[li]If you are going to quote something from an article, quote less than 5% of the source. Include a link to the article if the article is available online.[/li][li]Only quote directly in very rare circumstances. Instead of repeating a source word-for-word, read the article, attempt to understand it, and rephrase what it says in your own words. Again, include a link to the source if the source is available online. Otherwise indicate a reference to the source (e.g. Science News, issue x, pages yy-zz).[/list=A][/li][/quote]

I don’t think it would hurt you to try to restate the gist of an article in your own words instead of regurgitating what you find at another website. I don’t want to have to keep on comparing word counts.

[Read_Neck]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**CBS changed the headline not because there was any doubt that the statement in question was false but because the White House found a patsy to fall on the grenade. The administration has adopted a pretense that they were misled by the CIA and Tenet is playing along like a good boy. I’m sure that arrangements have been made for Tenet to be “offered” a nice, cushy job in the private sector in about six months. **

Biggest crock of shit yet. You don’t change a statement unless you do have a problem with it. That’s as close as you get to a retraction in alphabet news. If Tenet’s the fallguy why not make a story to that effect?

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**Really? Why is there a “good chance”? On what basis do you make such an assertion given to date neither US nor British intel have withstood the harsh light of reality? Other than your typical moronic wishful thinking?

You really are a fucking idiot. **

Um, on the basis of US and British intel. Tenet, himself, says the CIA had told the British that the evidence was “inconclusive”, did not offer any explanation apparently, and the British said “that’s ok, we have other evidence and we’re confident of it.” And that’s pretty much it. Cites already provided. No wishful thinking necessary or stunted intelligence necessary, hm?

Your fondness for impromptu attacks on december is approaching unhealthy obsession levels, or else you really are just a fucking jerk. I can’t decide.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**Biggest crock of shit yet. You don’t change a statement unless you do have a problem with it. That’s as close as you get to a retraction in alphabet news. If Tenet’s the fallguy why not make a story to that effect? **

LOL- more unintentional humor from the far right. Keep fixating on the smallest minor issues and inventing far-fetched interpretations that way you never have to make a well-supported substantive point. Then again, that seems to be your reason for being.

Whatever- I can always use the laugh, but just don’t think you’re fooling anybody.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**Um, on the basis of US and British intel. Tenet, himself, says the CIA had told the British that the evidence was “inconclusive”, did not offer any explanation apparently, and the British said “that’s ok, we have other evidence and we’re confident of it.” And that’s pretty much it. **

No, see the whole fucking point is that’s pretty muchnot it.

How did it end up in the SOTU?

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**Um, on the basis of US and British intel. Tenet, himself, says the CIA had told the British that the evidence was “inconclusive”, did not offer any explanation apparently, and the British said “that’s ok, we have other evidence and we’re confident of it.” And that’s pretty much it. Cites already provided. No wishful thinking necessary or stunted intelligence necessary, hm?

**

What U.S. intel?

After the White House acknowledged last week that the claim, which was subsequently proven to be untrue, was unproven at the time of Bush’s speech and should not have been used, Tenet issued a statement in which he accepted responsibility for approving the speech.

   But his statement also said that his advisers had only “concurred” with White House officials that by naming the British government as the source of the Niger claim, it was “factually correct.” 

And later:

POSSIBLE CHENEY ROLE SCRUTINIZED
Two GOP lawmakers also told NBC News that they will ask the spymaster what role Vice President Dick Cheney may have played in getting the unproven assertions into the speech.

MSNBC News - Breaking News and News Today | Latest News

And as mentioned before:

Noting that the CIA removed a similar uranium claim from a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati, Ohio in October because it did not have confidence that the U.S. intelligence was accurate, Chambliss asked, “If they took it out in October, allowed it in January, then why did they? Why has nobody been forthcoming since January if, in fact, the information was not correct?”

Oops, looks like even some Republicans are getting fed up the the Bush Administration on this issue:

But criticism of the administration is not strictly partisan. While Republicans generally have been more supportive of the administration, a few have said it needs to further address the question of pre-war intelligence on Iraq.

“It wasn’t just the CIA involved here,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Nebraska. “We had the vice president and his office involved, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, [Secretary of State Colin] Powell’s people. This wasn’t just a one-man show.”

Hagel voted to give Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, but he told reporters last week the administration’s case for war was looking “weaker and weaker.” He told CNN: “There’s a cloud hanging over this administration.”

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/16/white.house.tenet/

But am I sure that’s just a crazy liberal GOP Senator.

Our “damn good” intelligence services at work:

Because Niger’s uranium is fully controlled by international companies, the claim that Niger was selling 500 pounds of “yellowcake” uranium made no sense to U.S. intelligence analysts.

And as is now well known, the documents themselves were printed with obsolete Iraqi and Niger letterheads and were soon spotted as forgeries by the International Atomic Energy Agency and made public when the agency’s chief, Mohamed El Baradei, testified before the U.N. Security Council on March 8.

“It was not really very difficult for us to come to the quick conclusion that these documents were forgeries,” El Baradei told German ZDF Television.

And as stated and well-Cited above (and conviently dodged by the Bush Apologista’s), why would our “damn fine” intelligence services sign off on a claim that others in the administration (See the Condelica Rice two-step on this issue) acknowledge as known bad claims? Gee I wonder?

Not only was Vice President Dick Cheney seated directly behind President Bush when he cited the flawed information in his State of the Union address, but Cheney played a key and personal role in pushing CIA analysts to confirm the Niger story, intelligence sources told ABCNEWS.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030715_docs.html

:dubious:

[Tee]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
And as stated and well-Cited above (and conviently dodged by the Bush Apologista’s), why would our “damn fine” intelligence services sign off on a claim that others in the administration (See the Condelica Rice two-step on this issue) acknowledge as known bad claims? Gee I wonder?

Gee, probably for the same reason El Baradei can claim documents are forgeries but support the idea that Iraq sought uranium. Like here:

http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/01/F.RU.000124125828.html

The IAEA accounting of Iraq’s uranium stocks is particularly important to the international community because Baghdad is known to have sought enriched uranium to secretly develop nuclear weapons. Meyer says IAEA inspectors found evidence of those programs when they uncovered greater amounts of highly enriched uranium in Iraq after the Gulf War than could reasonably be used by its limited nuclear power and research facilities.

“There were some 150 tons of highly enriched uranium which we have, between 1990 and 1994, removed out of the country. Only a very small percentage of it was manufactured, or enriched, in Iraq. Iraq was in 1990 just a the beginning of enriching to a higher percentage of uranium [for generating energy]. Iraq had a completely separate, secret enrichment program and a program to get uranium, highly enriched uranium, for a bomb in a separate, secret way.”

Are they wishful-thinking morons too?

[TWDuke]

*Originally posted by Tee *
**The discussions have been done in both GD and the Pit many times and the underlying facts don’t change. Your #2 statement is probably false.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/07/12/sprj.irq.uk.uranium.straw/

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,997250,00.html

Take any recent article, you’ll find them stating they did not rely on forged documentation to make claims that 1) Iraq sought uranium from Africa, and 2) Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear weapons program. The CIA did not rely on the forged documents to claim that Iraq was reconsituting its nuclear weapons program either. Neither side is sharing 100% with the other, and they both reached the same conclusion overall.

That’s a pretty big point of contention, and you’ve extrapolated it all the way through to #13, so I can’t comment on the rest.**

Thanks for replying and providing cites. By “them stating”, do you mean the British government? Ours does not seem to consider this a point of contention:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030711-7.html

Condaleeza Rice
Now, I can tell you, if the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, had said, take this out of the speech, it would have been gone, without question. What we’ve said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn’t have put this in the President’s speech – but that’s knowing what we know now.
**

So in Ms. Rice’s expressed opinion, the report relied on a forgery as a source and should not have been cited in the state of the union address.

Also, most of the points in my previous post don’t depend on specific forgery allegations. Some refer to general doubts about the report, and this thread already includes ample cites indicating that doubts were raised well before the president’s speech.

[vibrotronica]

Rep. Hagel said:

“There’s a cloud hanging over this administration.”

Who heard the echo of “There’s a cancer growing on the Presidency”?

[elf6c]

Too bad your Cite doesn’t prove what you are trying to say.

There were some 150 tons of highly enriched uranium which we have, between 1990 and 1994, removed out of the country.

They had some Uranium- which was removed after the Gulf War- over a decade ago. Not that they have sought any, nor had any now. Nice try though.

Also, the U.S. government itself has repeatedly acknowledged the documents as fakes. Although given the massive credibility failure regarding Iraqi WMD’s I can see why you might want to question anything Condelesa Rice claims. Also, as I recall, even the U.K. acknowledged those documents were fakes, but were claiming they had other “double secret” documents which were not. Umm, right.

Right, that disposed of, any other Cites?

[TWDuke]

quote:

“There were some 150 tons of highly enriched uranium which we have, between 1990 and 1994, removed out of the country. Only a very small percentage of it was manufactured, or enriched, in Iraq. Iraq was in 1990 just a the beginning of enriching to a higher percentage of uranium [for generating energy]. Iraq had a completely separate, secret enrichment program and a program to get uranium, highly enriched uranium, for a bomb in a separate, secret way.”

Tee, this cite (dating from 2000) seems to refer to uranium that was obtained before 1990 and removed in or before 1994. The British report in question alleged more recent activity.

[elf6c]

*Originally posted by TWDuke *

Tee, this cite (dating from 2000) seems to refer to uranium that was obtained before 1990 and removed in or before 1994. The British report in question alleged more recent activity. **

Let me help Tee, he does seem to be making an effort.

Blair was claiming the late 90’s.

More Cites:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=6410

But London has stood by the allegation, insisting that the intelligence was not MI6’s own and was based on information received from a foreign intelligence service which they could not share with the American CIA.

“The intelligence on which we based this was not the so-called forged documents that have been put to the IAEA, and the IAEA have accepted that they got no such forged documents from British intelligence,” Blair said.

“We had independent intelligence to the effect,” Blair added.

Double secret indeed!

Grab some straws Tony!

Blair said that it was not “beyond the bounds of possibility” as Iraq had in the 1980s purchased over 270 tonnes of uranium from Niger.

See, they did it 2 decades ago- so they could have done it now. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

The paper said that the documents, reportedly obtained by Italian secret services from an African diplomat, contained huge inconsistencies which suggested they were forgeries.

One, for example, was a letter both addressed to and signed by the president of Niger. Another referred to an event which had not happened at the time the letter was dated.

The US has already retracted its uranium claims against Iraq, apologising for accepting as true documents which have since turned out to be forgeries.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna has confirmed that documents which it has seen are forgeries.

If there was any further information it would still be appropriate for the IAEA to receive it in order to verify its veracity

But the UK has continued to insist that its own uranium information came from elsewhere, and has not been seen by either the US or the IAEA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3072593.stm

Any remaining questions regarding the fakes then?

[Read_Neck]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
**LOL- more unintentional humor from the far right. Keep fixating on the smallest minor issues and inventing far-fetched interpretations that way you never have to make a well-supported substantive point. Then again, that seems to be your reason for being.

Whatever- I can always use the laugh, but just don’t think you’re fooling anybody. **

That’s the OP. (It’s on the top of the page if you’re curious.) Alphabet news is and has been for many years totally devoid of reputable content. The story is bullshit on it’s face. Just a bunch of hacks trying to build their ratings. I have a real good idea what happened since the Brits have been telling everyone all along but there’s too many “unnamed sources”. Everybody wants to point a finger at the French because it would seem logical but there’s somebody else that has a very special interest in Hussein’s nuclear program.

Horseshit!! Now you’ve lured me into this conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Read_Neck *
**Now you’ve lured me into this conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. **

Nope you did that all by yourself. Your explanations are like making 3 rights instead of a single left, and you’re still headed in the wrong direction.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
They had some Uranium- which was removed after the Gulf War- over a decade ago. Not that they have sought any, nor had any now. Nice try though.

What are they inspecting in 2000 then, if none is there. It says it is important to monitor Iraq’s supplies because they were known to have sought uranium for secret programs. “Known.” Within the last decade. So, one of the definitive sources of knowledge of anything having to do with Iraq’s nuclear programs (which is also the one that proclaimed Nigerien documents to be forgeries) believes that Iraq sought to acquire enriched uranium, illicitly, within the last decade. And there was still some concern as late as 2000 that some of the protected supplies in Iraq might be diverted to this secret program, even. Do I have that right?

Originally posted by TWDuke
** Tee, this cite (dating from 2000) seems to refer to uranium that was obtained before 1990 and removed in or before 1994. The British report in question alleged more recent activity.**

Ours did too, supposedly. This is from Tenet:

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents – or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

This is where the split happens. The “individual with ties to the region” is probably former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was brought up here once already and gave his assessment of the situation: no conclusive evidence. The British government was made aware of this finding (see previous cnn cite - Jack Straw) and their opinion is that Wilson’s assessment is dubious. They seem to have something additional that we don’t have.

[system]

On the validity of the observation:

Um, on the basis of US and British intel.

Well, yes my yelping lap dog, that’s rather fucking obvious, however, should one wish to engage some semblance of indpendent critical facilities, one might, again, with the rather strong assumption that we are thinking critically and without some kind of namby pamby knee jerk ideological defence, wish to engage is some reflection on the record to date.

To wit, that fact that the entire edifice of Anglo-American claims in re Iraq and its programs have proven false. Not slightly false, very false. Badly exaggerated, poorly characterized and generally without a good basis. Indeed, Cook (you do know who he is, don’t you? and others in the critical camp were spot on in their

Tenet, himself, says the CIA had told the British that the evidence was “inconclusive”, did not offer any explanation apparently, and the British said “that’s ok, we have other evidence and we’re confident of it.”

Touching, warming the heart that. Yet the evidence remains… well secret. All kinds of excuses are advanced, but the reality is that everything that has come to independent scrutiny has fallen apart.

Now, we hand wavingly refer to super secret information and say, oh yes, while all the public information has fallen apart like some sodden noodle, but the secret double secret info that the nasty French won’t give us the double nod and a nudge on, while that stands right up and salutes.

Well, on two bases I find this a laughable and indeed ridiculous line of argument. Well, maybe three.

First, and least important, my personal contacts in this area were not convinced. That may be taken in the context of my own track record on these issues. Do a fucking search if you like.

Second, insofar as (a) we already have prima facie evidence of manipulation of intel proffered to the public and (b) insofar as the parties making the public claims have no small interest in trying to stem the tide, one may reasonably question the veracity of the posturing, and it is indeed posturing, to date. In fact, if one is gifted with some semblance of critical facilities – I have to suspect you are not given the drivel to date – then I would think the whole, “ahhh yes, *that evidence is fucked, but we’ve got more! Yes indeed, more, back round in the files, yes. Oh, and it’s the French, wouldn’t let us use it, yes, that’s right.” crap would seem somewhat questionable.

And that’s pretty much it. Cites already provided. No wishful thinking necessary or stunted intelligence necessary, hm?

Only if one is completely devoid of critical facilities.

Your fondness for impromptu attacks on december is approaching unhealthy obsession levels, or else you really are just a fucking jerk. I can’t decide.

Well, no need, I couldn’t fuck what some twit like yourself concludes. I should say, however, that my ‘attacks’ on december are hardly impromptu, at least in any ordinary sense of the word – presuming you know what it means. The interventions come when posts idiocy in areas where I have some knowledge or interest. Insofar as my dear Blog Spotter Extraordinaire does so frequently on MENA issues, well that’s the risk he runs. He’s a big boy.

[system]

Round the posy

*Originally posted by Tee *
This is where the split happens. The “individual with ties to the region” is probably former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was brought up here once already and gave his assessment of the situation: no conclusive evidence. The British government was made aware of this finding (see previous cnn cite - Jack Straw) and their opinion is that Wilson’s assessment is dubious. They seem to have something additional that we don’t have.

Of course we have something of a problem here, insofar as the Blair Government faces some serious problems in the realm of its intel assessments - to date utterly wrong - and that Cook, a respected senior figure, left the government, having seen the materials, indicating he felt it was and is exagerated.

So you’ve got a bit of problem, the Brits have a clear interest in not copping to shitty intel - the Blair Gov’t would be in deep shit if it does. Their mere assertions that they’ve got better, more secret stuff, doesn’t wash, insofar as so far nothing yet has stood up to scrutiny.

[elf6c]

Like I said we are running behind the UK, about 4 weeks is my guess:

Some Democrats think the damage to Bush could go well beyond the Iraq issue. One of Bush’s most valuable attributes has been his reputation for honesty and straight talking. But the controversy has caused the White House to appear slippery. In moments reminiscent of the Clinton presidency Bush and his aides have sought to parse phrases – they have called the disputed claim “technically accurate” because it was pinned on British intelligence – and they have said it is time to “move on,” the same phrase Clinton aides used. Also, a president who came to office criticizing those who would blame others for their problems has put responsibility on the CIA and the British.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2559-2003Jul16.html

Also a nice jab at Courage the Cowardly President:

ABC’s “Good Morning America” showed soldiers from the Third Infantry Division in Iraq criticizing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and questioning their mission. Minnesota Public Radio this week quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a soldier killed in Iraq, saying: “President Bush made a comment a week ago, and he said ‘bring it on.’ Well, they brought it on, and now my nephew is dead.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2559-2003Jul16.html

Balir and Bush to meet today, love to be able to listen in at this meeting:

Bush’s State of the Union address hung the accusation of uranium shopping on the British after it was questioned by U.S. intelligence experts. Bush has now acknowledged that he should not have said it, because documents that were underpinning the charge were forged.

That shattered Bush’s public harmony with Blair, his lead partner in the coalitions that invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The British are sticking with the allegation, saying they have a secret source that is trustworthy and separate from the fraudulent papers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2270-2003Jul16.html

Oh by the way Bush Apologista’s, if you could pause your Clintonish word parsing efforts for a minute could you let me know if we found any of those WMD’s or even any of the “programs”?

:dubious:

[december]

*Originally posted by elf6c *
**Oh by the way Bush Apologista’s, if you could pause your Clintonish word parsing efforts for a minute could you let me know if we found any of those WMD’s or even any of the “programs”?

:dubious: **

This interview conducted by Tom Brokaw is a good source of up-to-date information on the hunt for WMDs. I won’t try to summarize it. Read the whole thing.

[Charlie_Tan]

december has suddenly decided to trust ‘alphabet’ news. However, after reading the whole interview I still don’t know more than I did before. David Kay says they are looking and have found documents, but he’s not being specific, in any way. Answers will come in six months. Or later. Or depending on how the stuff is being interpreted.

Of course he’s saying that they’re looking, and that they’ve found documents that are being checked out. That’s his job. I did read the whole thing, december, and as you’re only posting a link, I wouldn’t know what conclusions you draw. Me, myself and I think it’s all talk, at this point.