Bush dismisses criticism of false Iraq intelligence
(Note: This is an interesting note that many in the media and outside observers are missing: But White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president's Jan. 28 address only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ~~~
So who were the ones that signed off on it from all the various agencies....)
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
The Washington Post
seattletimes.nwsource.com
PRETORIA, South Africa — President Bush brushed aside questions yesterday about the accuracy of his claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, declaring there was "no doubt" his decision to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power was correct.
The president avoided directly answering questions about whether he regretted the inclusion of the claim and whether he still believed the charge — that Iraq had sought a form of uranium from Niger — to be true despite the acknowledgment from White House aides this week that the allegation was wrong and should not have been in the speech.
Bush dismissed the matter as "attempts to rewrite history."
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace," Bush said at a news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki on the second day of his five-day African tour. "And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth."
The White House acknowledged Monday that the intelligence underlying the president's uranium-purchase assertion was incorrect and should not have been in his State of the Union speech. Leading Democrats have seized on the admission as justification for a congressional inquiry into the administration's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said the White House learned only after the president's speech that documents that were the basis for his uranium-purchase claim had been forged.
"After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents," he said. "With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech."
It has emerged in recent weeks, however, that the CIA dispatched a former senior diplomat, Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims and that Wilson concluded the allegations were false. Administration officials have said the information had not been conveyed to the White House at the time of the speech.
The CIA and State Department, a month before the president's speech, had stopped referring to the Niger issue in public statements and documents because they were questioning the reliability of the intelligence, senior officials said.
But White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president's Jan. 28 address only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said the passage was included in drafts of the speech for at least 10 days before Bush delivered it. Bartlett said he knew of no objections to including the charge, or debate over the wording.
"We wouldn't lead with something that we thought could be refuted," Bartlett said. "There was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on. This was not a last-minute addition."
Bartlett said the sentence was included as part of a desire to build a five-point case against Saddam — that he possessed, or was seeking, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, had a history of human-rights violations and had links to terrorism.
"This was not the centerpiece of our case," Bartlett said. "It fit in the overall context of the model that we had been following in outlining the case — what he did, what he has, what he's trying to do, and the fact that he was not complying with the demands of the world."
On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was repeatedly questioned yesterday about the administration's handling of the uranium-purchase claim, saying at one point that "I can't give you a good answer" as to why he was not told about intelligence analysts' doubts about the report.
"This is a significant piece of intelligence; it was relied on at the highest level, very publicly, very visibly, by the president and by you within two days of each other, right before the war — a very significant statement about seeking uranium in Africa," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "At the same time, the intelligence community knew ... in the depths of their agency that this was not true," he said, calling the episode "absolutely startling."
But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., vigorously denounced revisiting the question of whether U.S. intelligence was wrong, calling it "nothing but an absurd, media-driven diversionary tactic."
Bush's aides said the president was not angry to learn that the allegation about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Niger turned out to be false. They said he has accepted their account of how the line had come to be included in his speech.
"He understands intelligence and that as new information becomes available, we're going to continually update," Bartlett said. "He wanted an explanation, and we told him how the process works and he accepted it. He just asked, 'Why?' "
A senior administration official said the claim was tied to British officials because they had included it in a government intelligence dossier in September. "When given a choice, why not cite a public document?" the official said.
A British parliamentary commission, which investigated the British government's handling of Iraq intelligence, on Monday cast serious doubt about the uranium claim in the British intelligence dossier that was the basis for Bush's remarks.
Publication of the British report prompted the White House to formally acknowledge that the assertion was wrong and end months of uncertainty over the matter during which senior officials had defended the president's remarks.
Allen reported from Washington. Staff writers Walter Pincus and Thomas E. Ricks in Washington contributed to this
PRETORIA, South Africa — President Bush brushed aside questions yesterday about the accuracy of his claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa, declaring there was "no doubt" his decision to go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power was correct.
The president avoided directly answering questions about whether he regretted the inclusion of the claim and whether he still believed the charge — that Iraq had sought a form of uranium from Niger — to be true despite the acknowledgment from White House aides this week that the allegation was wrong and should not have been in the speech.
Bush dismissed the matter as "attempts to rewrite history."
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace," Bush said at a news conference with South African President Thabo Mbeki on the second day of his five-day African tour. "And there's no doubt in my mind that the United States, along with allies and friends, did the right thing in removing him from power. And there's no doubt in my mind, when it's all said and done, the facts will show the world the truth."
The White House acknowledged Monday that the intelligence underlying the president's uranium-purchase assertion was incorrect and should not have been in his State of the Union speech. Leading Democrats have seized on the admission as justification for a congressional inquiry into the administration's handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq.
Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said the White House learned only after the president's speech that documents that were the basis for his uranium-purchase claim had been forged.
"After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents," he said. "With the advantage of hindsight, it's known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech. This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech."
It has emerged in recent weeks, however, that the CIA dispatched a former senior diplomat, Joseph Wilson, to Niger in 2002 to investigate the uranium claims and that Wilson concluded the allegations were false. Administration officials have said the information had not been conveyed to the White House at the time of the speech.
The CIA and State Department, a month before the president's speech, had stopped referring to the Niger issue in public statements and documents because they were questioning the reliability of the intelligence, senior officials said.
But White House officials said the uranium claim was included in the president's Jan. 28 address only after the wording had been approved by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department. In his remarks, Bush declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, said the passage was included in drafts of the speech for at least 10 days before Bush delivered it. Bartlett said he knew of no objections to including the charge, or debate over the wording.
"We wouldn't lead with something that we thought could be refuted," Bartlett said. "There was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on. This was not a last-minute addition."
Bartlett said the sentence was included as part of a desire to build a five-point case against Saddam — that he possessed, or was seeking, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, had a history of human-rights violations and had links to terrorism.
"This was not the centerpiece of our case," Bartlett said. "It fit in the overall context of the model that we had been following in outlining the case — what he did, what he has, what he's trying to do, and the fact that he was not complying with the demands of the world."
On Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was repeatedly questioned yesterday about the administration's handling of the uranium-purchase claim, saying at one point that "I can't give you a good answer" as to why he was not told about intelligence analysts' doubts about the report.
"This is a significant piece of intelligence; it was relied on at the highest level, very publicly, very visibly, by the president and by you within two days of each other, right before the war — a very significant statement about seeking uranium in Africa," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "At the same time, the intelligence community knew ... in the depths of their agency that this was not true," he said, calling the episode "absolutely startling."
But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., vigorously denounced revisiting the question of whether U.S. intelligence was wrong, calling it "nothing but an absurd, media-driven diversionary tactic."
Bush's aides said the president was not angry to learn that the allegation about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Niger turned out to be false. They said he has accepted their account of how the line had come to be included in his speech.
"He understands intelligence and that as new information becomes available, we're going to continually update," Bartlett said. "He wanted an explanation, and we told him how the process works and he accepted it. He just asked, 'Why?' "
A senior administration official said the claim was tied to British officials because they had included it in a government intelligence dossier in September. "When given a choice, why not cite a public document?" the official said.
A British parliamentary commission, which investigated the British government's handling of Iraq intelligence, on Monday cast serious doubt about the uranium claim in the British intelligence dossier that was the basis for Bush's remarks.
Publication of the British report prompted the White House to formally acknowledge that the assertion was wrong and end months of uncertainty over the matter during which senior officials had defended the president's remarks.
Allen reported from Washington. Staff writers Walter Pincus and Thomas E. Ricks in Washington contributed to this |
