SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/13/2003 9:38:42 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
It's the BuzzFlash Interview with Molly Ivins, Need We Say More

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

July 10, 2003

Yes, BuzzFlash and Molly Ivins had a little chat about things.

For one thing, Molly's got a new book coming out in September, "Bushwhacked," written with her "Shrub" co-author, Lou Dubose. The cover (Bush in full "Friday the 13th" buzzsaw gear) is worth the price of the book. Then of course, there's the subject du jour, the man of the hour, George W. Bush himself. Along the way we discuss the almost inexplicable hypocrisy of Tom DeLay, the Svengali smarts of Mr. Rove, and the "bushwhacked" plight of the average American who doesn't get much attention anymore.

Here's what her publisher, Random House, has to say about "Bushwhacked":

"Bushwhacked brings to light the horrendous legacy of the Bush tax cut, his increasingly appalling environmental record, his administration's involvement in the Enron scandal, and the real Bush foreign policy—botched nation building in Kabul and Baghdad, alienation of former allies—and, unfortunately, much more. Ivins and Dubose go beyond the too frequently soft media coverage of Bush to show us just how damaging his policies have been to ordinary Americans."

BuzzFlash loves these two excerpts from the book:

Dubya's accomplishments as governor of Texas

"As full-time residents of the state that gave you tort reform, H. Ross Perot, and penis-enlargement options on executive health plans, we're obliged to warn you that if Dubya Bush really had exported ‘the Texas Miracle,' the country would be in deep shit."

Dubya's environmental record

"Bush has a chemical-dependency problem, but it's not cocaine. It's Monsanto, Dow, and Union Carbide. They wrote the checks that put him in the Texas governor's mansion....Bush had two voluntary emissions-control programs here in Texas. One involved polluting industries. The other was directed at adolescent males, who were encouraged to ‘try abstinence.' Only 3 of our 8,645 most obnoxiously polluting refineries actually volunteered to cut back on their toxic emissions. Numbers on teenage boys are not yet in."

Of course, BuzzFlash will be offering the book as a premium when it comes out in September.

In the meantime, you can get your "Molly Ivins Fix" right here on BuzzFlash.com. Without further ado, here is the BuzzFlash interview with Molly.

* * *

BUZZFLASH: You have a new book, "Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush's America," coming out in the fall.

MOLLY IVINS: Right.

BUZZFLASH: Are we better off than we were three years ago?

IVINS: No. No. Jim Hightower and I, for years, have talked about how the media pays far too much attention to the Dow Jones average. And that, you know, eighty-some pages in the newspaper on the financial world, and hours on television people carry on about the market. But they don't have much to do with real people's lives. What we need is "the Doug Jones average" – Doug Jones, average American. How's old Doug doing? Is he up? Is he down? And that's sort of what our book addresses.

What my co-author Lou Dubose and I do in every chapter of "Bushwhacked" is take some change in federal policy made in Washington that is usually far below the media radar screen. Nobody pays any attention to most of these policies. And then we take them out -- traipse them out -- and show how they're affecting average folks in their everyday lives. And of course, the beauty of it is that there's no such thing as average folks. I mean, we met some of the most fabulous Americans you can imagine.

BUZZFLASH: So you actually went out into the field and used examples of real American lives.

IVINS: Talked to people. Yeah, it's such a novel concept. It seems to be. You know, it used to be that political reporters made the connection between government and people's lives, and the media would say here's what the government's fixing to do, and here's how it's gonna affect you. But somehow it seems to me that the Washington press corps has gotten so entangled in consultants and polling, and permanent campaigns, and horse races -- and stuff like that -- that they seem to have forgotten that this is about people's lives.

And so we concentrated on that connection, and the mysterious disconnection of awareness on how the policy and the impact were connected. In other words, we were talking to people, many of whom were completely unaware that the problems they have were related to specific decisions in Washington.

BUZZFLASH: Well, why do you think that? What's happened to the disconnect? Is the media not conveying, as you just indicated, the connections? Or are people just not reading papers anymore, and getting their information just from television, which tends to just give you headlines and visual images.

IVINS: I think it's a combination. I think television is leaving us less well informed. And, too, people's lives are terribly busy. You now, in the 19th Century in this country, politics was sort of the major sport, and everybody paid attention to it. But except in times of national crisis, that rarely happens anymore. I think too there's been years of right-wing propaganda to the effect that government can't do anything right, that government screwed up a lot, that government just wastes your money through taxes.

BUZZFLASH: Now you covered George Bush for a long time. And obviously have you've written tons of commentary on him. You're a Texan. Do you consider him a REAL Texan?

IVINS: Oh, yes, he's very much a culturally identified Texan.

BUZZFLASH: In his own mind?

IVINS: Yes. And his father very clearly, you know, was an upper-class Eastern WASP. W's a gentleman.

BUZZFLASH: Now Michael Lind, in his book, says that people shouldn't be confused and consider George W. Bush part of the Southwest image of Texas –- that he's purely the kind of Southern heritage of Texas that has its roots in the Confederacy.

IVINS: Well, I've read Lind's book, and I thought it was a fascinating distinction. He built up the two, that distinction, through the entire book. It was an interesting thesis, but I'm not sure I would apply that particular filter. That seems to me to be simplistic. I think Lind's right to the extent that Bush comes out of the mineral extracting industry, as it were. Out of that oil business.

BUZZFLASH: Natural resources.

IVINS: Yes, where you would get the money out of the ground.

BUZZFLASH: As a long-time observer of Texas politics, you wonder in your book that you put out shortly before the 2000 election, "Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush," why Bush even wanted to be into government. He had no interest in policy, in reading. He was impatient with meetings.

IVINS: Bush still amazes me about this. You know, he's just not terribly interested in government.

I must say that Louis Dubose and I are almost insufferably smug about how well "Shrub" has held up. And in fact, the predicted value of it I think has been pretty extraordinary. As I say, we're just disgustingly complacent, or self-complacent, about that. In fact, we were tempted to start the new book off by saying that "if you all had read the last one we wrote, we wouldn't have had to write this one."

What we did was just look at Bush's record in "Shrub." And consequently, I think we were less surprised than anybody in America when Bush started governing from lies.

BUZZFLASH: Bush seems to be a branded product under Karl Rove's mentoring. He's the congenial guy, the backslapper, the bestower of nicknames on reporters, the branded "compassionate conservative." And it seems very difficult for Democrats or, let alone the press, to bring up the record as you did in "Shrub," which belies the branded image.

IVINS: I think it's starting to sink in. I mean, you know, Americans are much smarter than politicians give them credit for being. And they're not better off than they were three years ago. They not only lost millions of jobs, but people are losing health insurance and pension benefits, and overtime, and the entire healthcare system is starting to crack and fall apart. I mean, it's just painful to watch. And I think . . . you know, I never wish for bad things to happen. But Iraq looks like a mess.

I'm in the happy position of having predicted a short, easy war followed by the peace from hell. And so far, I'm looking like a genius.

BUZZFLASH: Well, let's look at the war and the use of fear prior to the war. All of a sudden, we don't seem to have terror alerts anymore. Before the war, they were like jolts of electricity coming at a rapid pace. And certainly, in retrospect, from our perspective, seemed to have been used in a manipulative fashion to evoke a constant state of fear in Americans.

IVINS: Well, I don't think any of us is in a position to say that, unless you really have access to intelligence information. We have no way of knowing how well-grounded those alerts were, but you're right –- in retrospect, some of them appear a little silly. On the other hand, we're getting new ones right now. And we're in no position to judge the degree of gravity behind those.

BUZZFLASH: Well, how do we judge then how Bush is doing in the war on terror? You've mentioned that, well, now we have the peace from hell.

IVINS: The primary concern about Iraq, of course, was that it was just taking the eye off the ball, and was irrelevant to breaking up Al-Qaida. And I think that may indeed turn out to be one of the unfortunate side effects of Gulf War II. There is a bunch of material out now on the things that still need to be done. I mean, sort of almost self-evident things in terms of Homeland Security, a phrase I still wince at. Nuclear power plants, for example, are very high on everybody's list.

BUZZFLASH: Do you believe Bush's decisions –- or the decisions of his administration -- on how to conduct the war on terror have been political?

IVINS: I cannot believe in conspiracy theories. [laugh] On this, I'm gonna agree with Mrs. Clinton. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy in this country, but it's not hidden. It's right out there in plain sight. [laugh]

BUZZFLASH: Jim Moore, in his book "Bush's Brain," argues that, yes, obviously there is a real terrorist threat to this country. But the war was fashioned with a political objective in mind.

IVINS: Yes, the origins of the war seem ever more obscure. I mean, the more you try to get to exactly why we were driven into this thing, the more confusing it becomes. But again, I think, you know -– look, Bush was hit with September 11th. That changed everything. That reverses policies, and got him into things he never thought he'd be doing, like nation-building. He actually turned around and became a multi-lateralist for a period of about five months, until we had won in Afghanistan. And then he went back to the previous unilateralist approach that's really irking me alive.

I think it's much too easy to say it's all political calculations. It seems to me that what you have is a group of people who are reinforcing one another's prejudices and not accepting information from outside their inner loop. And they would be the obvious suspects, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et cetera, et cetera. And of all of them, I suspect that Cheney has the most influence. Of course, I say that simply because Bush's pattern has been to adopt an older male mentor as he enters each new field. He had an older mentor in baseball, and he had an older mentor in Texas politics.

And it seems to me that Cheney is the guy who he listens to. But I do –- I think all of them form a tight, self-reinforcing circle. And they're committing the ultimate political folly, which is not listening to people who don't agree with them. I think they equate dissension with disloyalty. And with the Bushes, both father and son, loyalty has always been considered THE primary virtue.

BUZZFLASH: Switching gears a bit, is the caricature of Bush as sort of an airhead an accurate one?

IVINS: No. I think I've said this several thousand times in my life. George W. Bush is not stupid, and he's not mean. You know, it is possible to really independently disagree with a politician's policies without personally hating him. You know, grownups can do that. [laugh] It's feasible, believe me.

You don't have to turn into, you know, the liberal equivalent of the Clinton hater in order to think that this guy's just completely screwing up the country. No, he's not stupid. He is very limited, however.

It's not stupidity as much as ignorance, and his inability and unwillingness to learn. He's not very curious. And it's not a first-rate mind. I mean, you get him to a certain point in a discussion, and if you ever hear him talk about "my instinct" or "my gut tells me," then you know we're in trouble. Then you know we have left the realm of facts and logic and where we're going is something else altogether.

IVINS: In "Shrub," we recount a long discussion Bush had with a reporter about the death penalty, the day that Karla Faye Tucker was executed. And they really had a serious talk about it. And at the very end of it, Bush said, "I know there is no evidence that shows that the death penalty is a deterrent. But I just feel in my gut that it must be true." Okay, now this is a guy who thinks that that is as good as, or more important, than evidence, than fact.

BUZZFLASH: His gut.

IVINS: Yes. And he has that response to several things. Sometimes it's a generous response. Sometimes it's an idiotic one. But it's -– as I say, it's not a first-rate mind. He's not stupid. And the fact that he tangles up the language -– well, so did his father. It's some kind of vocal dyslexia.

I think occasionally you find sort of dyslexic thinking in Bush.

BUZZFLASH: What do you mean by that?

IVINS: Well, the story he used to tell over and over when he was campaigning, about when he proposed to Laura out in Midland. In this story he recounts that Laura really doesn't like politics -– that she said that she would marry him only if he would promise her that she would never have to make a political speech. And then the audience would laugh. The poor woman has made thousands of them. And then Bush would beam and say, "I sure am glad she broke that promise." I mean, you're sitting there and saying to yourself, "wait a minute!"

BUZZFLASH: He's the one who made the promise. [laugh] Now, in "Bushwhacked," you are focusing on just ordinary Americans and how government policy has impacted them. In Texas, I mean, he touted this fantastic record. In "Shrub," you give him some credit for some things. But in general, the state fell apart after he left.

IVINS: I mean, you know, if you want to know what George Bush is doing to America, I say just come to Texas. This state is a mess. He left a disaster behind him. Two huge tax cuts, and then we got hit with a $9 billion deficit. And we've just been through hell this entire legislative session. The Republicans have taken over. They refuse to raise taxes, so can you imagine trying to take $9 billion dollars out of programs for poor people, which I assure you, in this state, are somewhere between inadequate and pathetic to begin with.

BUZZFLASH: And he left behind Governor Perry, who is a Rove protégé.

IVINS: Every statewide elected official in Texas is a Rove protégé.

BUZZFLASH: And Rove was involved in Perry winning against Jim Hightower years back in a race for Texas Agricultural Commissioner. In "Bush's Brain," the authors accuse Rove of some highly sleazy and legally questionable campaign activity against Hightower. And that was the beginning of Perry's kind of ascent to the governorship, if I recall. Because he beat Hightower and forced him out of office.

IVINS: That's right.

BUZZFLASH: Now Perry, also, of course, is saying that he's received no instructions from the White House to call the special session to steal congressional districts for the Republicans, even though this is a Tom DeLay burglary operation, by all accounts, to rob Democrats of seats and give them to Republicans.

IVINS: The new redistricting in Texas is a Delay-Rove deal. I'm sorry. I'm not an insider in Washington. I'm not privy to secret meetings or memos or anything else. I'll just tell you, I've known them a long time. It's a Rove-DeLay deal.

They ran the same play in Colorado.

BUZZFLASH: Now tell us a little about Tom DeLay. I mean, it's hard to understand what makes this guy tick.

IVINS: It's truly an astonishing case, isn't it? I'm not sure what we have. I don't even think it's compartmentalization. What you have, I think obviously, is a man who believes that he is a dedicated Christian, who is, I think, observably corrupt. That he has for years, collected huge amounts of campaign cash and it influences not only his vote, but the agenda of the House, and the way he works bills. I am absolutely fascinated at how he services large Republican campaign contributors. Now, how do you square that with a Christian commitment? And so you've got to think, okay: A) he could be a huge hypocrite. That's a possibility. B) he could be one of those people who rigidly manages to compartmentalize his life, so there's no overlap. I really don't know him well at all. He was a very minor figure when he was in the Texas legislature.

I think what you're looking at is someone who is so convinced of the moral superiority of his end that he doesn't care about the means at all.

BUZZFLASH: The Washington Post had a story about him a while back in which it stated that he doesn't talk to his mother. He's alienated from his brother. DeLay's daughter, a D.C. lobbyist, joined him on a trip to Las Vegas with campaign contributors. And she was in a hot tub with men pouring champagne over her. And it hardly seems like the lifestyle of a Puritanical, virtuous Christian. If this isn't "moral relativism," what is?

IVINS: I think Tom . . . there is an extent to which, and it's an unfortunate trait -– and it's a trait of Bush's too. And I don't know what it means, but that's life. As we say in our crude Texas fashion, he thinks that his shit don't stink. And that's very characteristic of Bush, who very often reverses course, and then lies. I really have a hard time believing that Tom Delay is a conscious hypocrite. I think that an assumption of righteousness is sometimes the unfortunate side effect of intense religious experience.

BUZZFLASH: Recently, we saw the so-called "Killer Ds" vamoose out of Texas to keep the Republican Congressional redistricting plan from being voted on in the last hours of the regular Texas legislature. And the "Killer Ds" became -- certainly to BuzzFlash readers and to many Democrats who have been concerned that the Congressional Democratic leadership has been far too passive -- great heroes.

IVINS: We think they're great heroes.

BUZZFLASH: Now this happened before in Texas, Democratic legislators rising up in revolt. Weren't they called the "Killer Bees" the first time?

IVINS: That's correct. It was twelve or fifteen years ago. I can't quite remember. It was 15 Senate Democrats pulled the same stunt and hid out in a garage apartment to break a quorum on a bill they opposed. And so now we had the "Killer D." But it's been done before. Republicans did it in California. And busting a quorum is not unheard of.

BUZZFLASH: Is there something the Democrats nationally can learn from taking assertive action like the "Killer Ds" did.

IVINS: I think that there comes a point where they're ramming something down your throat that's just flat wrong and unfair; you just can't take it anymore. And, it wasn't just a Congressional plan. This was a long experience for the Democrats. And it's fine to just say, oh, well, they're whining because they're not used to being out of power. But in fact, the House in Texas is badly run in terms of process. It was completely unfair. And several fled in rebellion. And I think it was effective. I think it was important. I think it just gave everybody inspiration, thank God. It is time the Democrats got mad. I realize that mad is not supposed to be in the national political vocabulary now. But the caliber of the people who are being put on the federal bench is just appalling.

I think it's time to use every parliamentary trick in the book.

BUZZFLASH: On another note, what's your quick take on the Rove-Bush relationship?

IVINS: I don't think anyone's ever been able to figure out where one begins and the other ends. I mean, you know, it's -- I suppose what they've been saying is that there's certainly an element of Svengali.

BUZZFLASH: Is Rove a genius? He certainly seems to be a three-dimensional strategist.

IVINS: He's very, very, very good. Very, very, very smart. And I never underestimate him. But he's made a few mistakes lately.

He screwed up that California race for governor out there. He drove the best candidate out of the race.

BUZZFLASH: Now our final question is this: given your long, distinguished career as a journalist based in Texas, and an irreplaceable source of insight into Texas, hard-boiled, sharp-elbow, eye-gouging politics, could you ever see yourself in any other setting? Would you be bored writing about politics in Wisconsin or Illinois?

IVINS: I'm one of those Texans who's left the state and come back several times. I finally just had to give up and say, yup, this is home.

BUZZFLASH: Is it just too boring elsewhere?

IVINS: You can't get material this good outside Texas.

BUZZFLASH: [laugh] Okay, Molly, thank you very much.

buzzflash.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 12:19:58 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
AMERICA DEMANDS A REAL INVESTIGATION....

[AS: You may want to email this to Senator Kerry]

CNN's late edition is running a poll. Here's the question and results so far:

Created: Thu Jul 10 16:50:32 EST 2003

Should Congress launch a formal inquiry into President Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence?

Yes 93% 7481 votes
No 7% 602 votes
Total: 8083 votes

edition.cnn.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 12:24:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
CNN POLL SHOWING THAT NOBODY BELIEVED TENET. (Captured at 9:19 AM PDT Saturday morning).

Whom do you blame for the mistake in the president's State of the Union address on Iraq?

President Bush 93% 16533 votes

British intelligence 2% 268 votes

CIA 5% 948 votes

Total: 17749 votes

Captured by: whatreallyhappened.com

[Scroll down to see results.]



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 12:33:32 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Come clean Mr Bush, say Democrats

_______________________________

Greg Miller & Edwin Chen

indianexpress.com


Washington, July 13: US President George W. Bush expressed support on Saturday for beleaguered CIA Director George J. Tenet, a day after the director acknowledged that the agency had failed to strip erroneous allegations against Iraq from the President’s State of the Union speech. But the administration effort to have Tenet take the blame triggered new recriminations — including a sharp rebuke from a key Democrat — that suggest the issue is far from closed.

Winding up his trip to Africa, Bush told reporters that he still trusts Tenet. ‘‘Yes I do, absolutely. I’ve got confidence in George Tenet. I’ve got confidence in the men and women who work at the CIA and I look forward to working with them as we win this war.’’ But even as White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said ‘‘the President considers the matter closed and wants to move on,’’ the administration continued to face persistent questions.

In particular, Fleischer was pressed to explain why the White House had not admitted the mistake after it learned that Bush’s assertion in the State of the Union was wrong.

The President said British intelligence indicated that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium from Africa to help reconstitute its alleged nuclear weapons programme. Fleischer said the record was corrected in March, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that documents that were the basis for the claim — a memorandum purporting to show a transaction between Iraq and Niger — were crude forgeries.

But the White House continued to stand behind the claim, part of its rationale for invading Iraq, until last week, even though there were indications before the war that it was erroneous.

For example, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell refused to include the uranium claims in his February 5 speech before the UN because the underlying intelligence was flawed. And other US sources said that last October, Tenet told Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to remove similar language on Iraq and African uranium from a speech Bush delivered in Cincinnati building the case for war.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the White House has yet to explain how dubious claims made their way to the President’s speech to begin with.

Rockefeller directed particularly pointed criticism at National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, saying her very public role in pinning the blame on Tenet is ‘‘dishonourable.’’ ‘‘Why does this all fall on George Tenet? Because it’s convenient,’’ Rockefeller said.

Rice, who accompanied the President on his recent tour of Africa, could not be reached for comment late Saturday. A National Security Council spokesman would say only ‘‘Dr Rice and Director Tenet have fully explained the facts of this matter. We consider this matter behind us.’’

Fleischer said Tenet’s mea culpa Friday was the product of several days of discussions between the White House and the CIA director. Asked whether Tenet was prompted to make the statement, Fleischer said, ‘‘It was mutual. The resident is pleased that (Tenet) acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged.’’

Other Democrats also criticised the administration’s handling of the matter, saying Tenet should not be singled out for a failure that some believe reflects a broader effort by the administration to exaggerate the evidence on which it based its case for going to war with Iraq. Richard Gephardt, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination said: ‘‘in the end the President is responsible for the information he puts out to the American people’’. (LAT-WP)



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 7:06:55 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19107319



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 7:24:12 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
*The New Cover Story From Time Magazine*

A Question Of Trust

The CIA's Tenet takes the fall for a flawed claim in the State of the Union, but has Bush's credibility taken an even greater hit?

By MICHAEL DUFFY AND JAMES CARNEY

July 21, 2003

time.com

The State of the Union message is one of America's greatest inventions, conceived by the Founders to force a powerful Chief Executive to report to a public suspicious of kings. Delivered to a joint session of Congress in democracy's biggest cathedral, it is the most important speech a President gives each year, written and rewritten and then polished again. Yet the address George W. Bush gave on Jan. 28 was more consequential than most because he was making a revolutionary case: why a nation that traditionally didn't start fights should wage a pre-emptive war. As Bush noted that night, "Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."

Just how aware was Bush of the accuracy of what he was about to say? Deep in his 5,400-word speech was a single sentence that had already been the subject of considerable internal debate for nearly a year. It was a line that had launched a dozen memos, several diplomatic tugs of war and some mysterious, last-minute pencil editing. The line—"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"—wasn't the Bush team's strongest evidence for the case that Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. It was just the most controversial, since most government experts familiar with the statement believed it to be unsupportable.

Last week the White House finally admitted that Bush should have jettisoned the claim. Designed to end a long-simmering controversy, the admission instead sparked a bewildering four days of changing explanations and unusually nasty finger pointing by the normally disciplined Bush team. That performance raised its own questions, which went to the core of the Administration's credibility: Where else did the U.S. stretch evidence to generate public support for the war? If so many doubted the uranium allegations, who inside the government kept putting those allegations on the table? And did the CIA go far enough to keep the bad intelligence out?

To that last question, at least, the answer was: apparently not. In what looked like a command performance of political sacrifice, the head of the agency that expressed some of the strongest doubts about the charge took responsibility for the President's unsubstantiated claim. "The CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered," said CIA Director George Tenet in a statement. "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And ... the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

Yet the controversy over those 16 words would not have erupted with such force were they not emblematic of larger concerns about Bush's reasoning for going to war in the first place. Making the case against Saddam last year, Bush claimed that Iraq's links to al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) made the country an imminent threat to the region and, eventually, the U.S. He wrapped the evidence in the even more controversial doctrine of pre-emption, saying America could no longer wait for proof of its enemies' intentions before defending itself overseas—it must sometimes strike first, even without all the evidence in hand. Much of the world was appalled by this logic, but Congress and the American public went along. Four months after the war started, at least one piece of key evidence has turned out to be false, the U.S. has yet to find weapons of mass destruction, and American soldiers keep dying in a country that has not greeted its liberators the way the Administration predicted it would. Now the false assertion and the rising casualties are combining to take a toll on Bush's standing with the public.

FOLLOW THE YELLOWCAKE ROAD
How did a story that much of the national-security apparatus regarded as bogus wind up in the most important speech of Bush's term? The evidence suggests that many in the Bush Administration simply wanted to believe it. The tale begins in the early 1980s, when Iraq made two purchases of uranium oxide from Niger totaling more than 300 tons. Known as "yellowcake," uranium oxide is a partially refined ore that, when combined with fluorine and then converted into a gas, can eventually be used to create weapons-grade uranium. No one disputes that Iraq had a nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s, but it was dismantled after the first Gulf War. Then, in the mid-1990s, defectors provided evidence that Saddam was trying to restart the program.

Finally, late in 2001, the Italian government came into possession of evidence suggesting that Iraq was again trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger. Rome's source provided half a dozen letters and other documents alleged to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials negotiating a sale. The Italians' evidence was shared with both Britain and the U.S.

When it got to Washington, the Iraq-Niger uranium report caught the eye of someone important: Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, told TIME that during one of his regular CIA briefings, "the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report." Cheney's interest hardly came as a surprise: he has long been known to harbor some of the most hard-line views of Saddam's nuclear ambitions. It was not long before the agency quietly dispatched a veteran U.S. envoy named Joseph Wilson to investigate. Wilson seemed like a wise choice for the mission. He had been a U.S. ambassador to Gabon and had actually been the last American to speak with Saddam before the first Gulf War. Wilson spent eight days sleuthing in Niger, meeting with current and former government officials and businessmen; he came away convinced that the allegations were untrue. Wilson never had access to the Italian documents and never filed a written report, he told TIME. When he returned to Washington in early March, Wilson gave an oral report about his trip to both CIA and State Department officials. On March 9 of last year, the CIA circulated a memo on the yellowcake story that was sent to the White House, summarizing Wilson's assessment. Wilson was not the only official looking into the matter. Nine days earlier, the State Department's intelligence arm had sent a memo directly to Secretary of State Colin Powell that also disputed the Italian intelligence. Greg Thielmann, then a high-ranking official at State's research unit, told TIME that it was not in Niger's self-interest to sell the Iraqis the destabilizing ore. "A whole lot of things told us that the report was bogus," Thielmann said later. "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

Except that it wasn't. By late summer, at the very moment that the Administration was gearing up to make its case for military mobilization, the yellowcake story took on new life. In September, Tony Blair's government issued a 50-page dossier detailing the case against Saddam, and while much of the evidence in the paper was old, it made the first public claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. At the White House, Ari Fleischer endorsed the British dossier, saying "We agree with their findings."

THE DOUBTS THAT DIDN'T GO AWAY
By now, a gap was opening behind the scenes between what U.S. officials were alleging in public about Iraq's nuclear ambitions and what they were saying in private. After Tenet left a closed hearing on Capitol Hill in September, the nuclear question arose, and a lower-ranking official admitted to the lawmakers that the agency had doubts about the veracity of the evidence. Also in September, the CIA tried to persuade the British government to drop the allegation completely. To this day, London stands by the claim. In October, Tenet personally intervened with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's deputy, Stephen Hadley, to remove a line about the African ore in a speech that Bush was giving in Cincinnati, Ohio. Also that month, CIA officials included the Brits' yellowcake story in their classified 90-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs. The CIA said it could neither verify the Niger story nor "confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake" from two other African nations. The agency also included the State Department's concerns that the allegations of Iraq's seeking yellowcake were "highly dubious"—though that assessment was printed only as a footnote.

At a time when it was trying to build public support for the war, the Bush Administration did not share these internal doubts about the evidence with the public. In December, for example, the State Department included the Niger claim in its public eight-point rebuttal to the 12,200-page arms declaration that Iraq made to the U.N. two weeks earlier. And a month later, in an op-ed column in the New York Times titled "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying," top Bush aide Rice appeared to repeat the yellowcake claim, saying, "The declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad." Nor did the U.S. pass on what it knew to international monitors. When the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. group, asked the U.S. for data to back up its claim in December, Washington sat tight and said little for six weeks.

The battle between believers and doubters finally came to a head over the State of the Union speech. Weeks of work had gone into the address; speechwriters had produced two dozen drafts. But as the final form was taking shape, the wording of the yellowcake passage went down to the wire. When the time came to decide whether Bush was going to cite the allegation, the CIA objected—and then relented. Two senior Administration officials tell TIME that in a January conversation with a key National Security Council (nsc) official just a few days before the speech, a top cia analyst named Alan Foley objected to including the allegation in the speech. The nsc official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD, Special Assistant to the President Robert Joseph, denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence. But another official told TIME, "There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the U.K. made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned." And so the line went in. While some argued last week that the fight should have been kicked upstairs to Rice for adjudication, White House officials claim that it never was.

NUCLEAR FALLOUT
But if it was good enough for bush, it wasn't good enough for others. Colin Powell omitted any reference to the uranium when he briefed the U.N. Security Council just eight days later; last week he told reporters that the allegation had not stood "the test of time." Nor did Tenet mention the allegation when he testified before the Senate panel on Feb. 11. "If we were trying to peddle that theory, it would have been in our white paper," an intelligence official told TIME. "It would have been in lots of places where it wasn't. A sentence made it into the President's speech, and it shouldn't have."

Did Bush really need to push the WMD case so hard to convince Americans that Saddam should be ousted? In a TIME poll taken four weeks before coalition forces invaded, 83% of Americans thought war was justified on the grounds that "Saddam Hussein is a dictator who has killed many citizens of his Iraq." That's one claim that has never been contested. In the same TIME poll, however, 72% of Americans thought war was also justified because it "will help eliminate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

The unseen threat of a Saddam with WMD was an argument that played to Bush's strengths. As a politician, Bush has always been better at asserting his case than at making it. After 9/11, his sheer certitude—and the faith Americans had in his essential trustworthiness—led Americans to overwhelmingly support him. The yellowcake affair may have already changed that relationship, for as the casualties mount in Iraq, polls suggest that some of that faith is eroding. Which means the next time Bush tells the nation where he wants to go, it may not be so quick to follow.

—With reporting by Massimo Calabresi, Matthew Cooper and Adam Zagorin/Washington, John F. Dickerson with Bush in Africa, J.F.O. McAllister/London and Andrew Purvis/Vienna



To: American Spirit who wrote (3332)7/14/2003 9:38:12 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Bilow takes on NeoCON over on the FADG thread...

Message 19110068

<<...Your facts are not facts. They're just your fantasies, generated to give you justification for a murderous policy that will haunt the United States and the Republican party for many years...>>