Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Attack Iraq? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Bergquist who wrote (7055)	7/15/2003 12:01:21 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 8683

Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate By JAMES RISEN URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/international/worldspecial/14INTE.html WASHINGTON, July 13 — Senior Bush administration officials today adjusted their defense of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union Address that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, insisting that the phrasing was accurate even if some of the underlying evidence was unsubstantiated. Advertisement Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate appearances on Sunday television talk programs that the disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered accurate today. While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's interest in acquiring African uranium. In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush contended that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop a nuclear bomb. Among elements he cited to make his case was a statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that "the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that." And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does — did say that — and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people." On the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld added that "it didn't rise to the standard of a presidential speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically accurate." The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a shift in the White House's strategy in dealing with the political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part on uncorroborated reports from abroad. It came after a week in which the White House first repudiated the statement and then blamed the Central Intelligence Agency for allowing Mr. Bush to make it. On Friday, George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, accepted responsibility, saying "these 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president." But the bout of finger-pointing between the White House and the agency concerning the African uranium only served to intensify the criticism of the administration for its handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Rather than quelling the controversy, the White House stoked it through official statements, providing an opening for Democratic leaders to attack the administration's handling of the intelligence. So Sunday's effort by Ms. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to be a response by the White House to turn down the flame on a hot story that the White House itself had helped ignite just days earlier. Some White House officials suggested that the public was less interested in the story's ins and outs than the news media and the political opposition, and that this was why the administration chose this approach. In the months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his advisers frequently cited classified intelligence reports that they said provided proof that Iraq was developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and had links to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Mr. Bush and his advisers said the threat posed by Iraq's development of those weapons and the possibility that Mr. Hussein might share them with terrorists made it necessary to overthrow the Iraqi government. Since American forces occupied the country, however, they have not discovered conclusive evidence of the existence of such weapons in Iraq's possession, and have also failed to discover conclusive proof that Iraq had forged a terrorist alliance with Al Qaeda. Continued