I couldn’t find any reference to Robert Joseph, so I copied all of the text into a MSWord doc and ran a search for Joseph and only found one instance, Joseph Wilson.
tomyoung, CNN’s story is the same as the one originally appearing in the Times Magazine, which I just cited.
But in your cite you left out that it was two people high up in the White House (“two senior Administration officials”, and I expect you know what a senior offcial is) who confirmed that Robert Joseph was indeed the NSC official in charge of vetting that information.
If you look you see that Robert Joseph, only denied “that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence.”
It doesn’t say anything about being bound and determined to have the I-u-A bit in the SotU address.
Actually, what I was talking about was the whole “Bush lied because he thought Saddam had WMD” line the Dems are pushing so hard.
Durbin said he wants the United Nations first to put in place "an unconditional inspection regime’’ to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and, if that fails "and we have a threat to our defense,’’ the president then can take action. He didn’t seem to have any doubt that Iraq had WMD then either.
And this from back when military action was a great thing for Durbin:
So anyone who questions Clinton’s motives for attacking Iraq is betraying the military, but anyone who questions Bush’s is just fine.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, show of hands from those who think that there’s only one person responsible, and it’s some guy we’ve never heard of before. :dubious:
And I expect you know what being a prick is, Alien. Clearly Joseph was in charge of vetting wmd info for speeches. In fact, the quote I provided said so explicitly: “The NSC official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD.” I meant that he was denying that he signed off on “the British have learned,” which is precisely what my cite conveyed.
With Internet Explorer you can just go to Edit, Find, and search the page.
Ha! Good one.
My question is, why is everyone so focused on this one Niger/Uranium point? The administration said multiple things during the runup to the war that turned out to be untrue. (Remember the “Al Qeda terrorist training camp/chemical weapons facility”?) Why are they only getting called on this one?
He, he, yes I do. What I meant was that for journalists covering the White House there is a rule that officials who doesn’t want to be referred to by name in an article, they are referred to as “senior officials” and “officials”, the former being highly placed persons. Sorry for any misconceptions.
What’s interesting about this is what has happened:
-
A CIA analyst named Alan Foley objected to including the allegation [Africa and uranium] in the speech [SOTU] a few days before the speech, according to “two senior White House officials” cited by Time Magazine
-
The person Foley objected to was a National Security Council official
-
Robert Joseph, who is a National Security Council member, was in charge of vetting WMD information on Iraq
-
Robert Joseph then “denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence”, again according to the Time Magazine article
-
Tonight we learn that :“Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted that [SOTU] include an assertion [about Africa and uranium] that had not been verified” (Yahoo News), and that, either:
a) MSNBC: CIA boss Tenet “reluctantly identified the official as Robert Joseph” or
b) REUTER: “It wasn’t Tenet who named anyone, but in response to questioning, other agency officials said that the conversations were with Robert Joseph, a U.S. official told Reuters on condition of anonymity”.
If what has been reported so far tonight is correct, then this is definitely more fuel to the media’s fire.
An interesting pair of articles came out today on who knew what, and when.
This morning we got: Officials: CIA Got Documents After Claim
In late afternoon this came out: U.S. Had Iraq-Niger Documents from Private Source
If neither of these articles is bogus, they imply that the State department held out on the CIA. Did state, Defense, or the White house try to validate the documents independently of the CIA ?
How about a whole shadow Govt. department?
“Most of the people they had in that office were off the books, on personal services contracts. At one time, there were over 100 of them,” said an intelligence source. The contracts allow a department to hire individuals, without specifying a job description.
As John Pike, a defence analyst at the thinktank GlobalSecurity.org, put it, the contracts “are basically a way they could pack the room with their little friends”.
“They surveyed data and picked out what they liked,” said Gregory Thielmann, a senior official in the state department’s intelligence bureau until his retirement in September. “The whole thing was bizarre. The secretary of defence had this huge defence intelligence agency, and he went around it.”
In fact, the OSP’s activities were a complete mystery to the DIA and the Pentagon.
“The iceberg analogy is a good one,” said a senior officer who left the Pentagon during the planning of the Iraq war. “No one from the military staff heard, saw or discussed anything with them.”
I’m not exactly sure what Reuters means by this but every other scource (including Durbin) I’ve seen has said Tenet named a name or names. I’m sure this wasnt due to any new found backbone of Tenet’s but the fear of lying to congress.
From the Guardian article linked above:
If this is true, that this shadow agency was created to compete with the existing intelligence agencies, what does this say about the so-called efforts to shore up intelligence failures in the aftermath of 9-11? Does anyone think anybody’s minding the store. Seems like the Bushies do a decent job taking away civil liberties in its rush to fight this so-called “War on Terror,” but who the Hell’s making the improvements that were so sorely needed to avoid another 9-11?