July 14, 2003
'darn good evidence'
Evidently, President Bush doesn’t understand the definition of “good”. He recently said that “I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence […]” Are you kidding? Besides the fact that he has been caught in a lie, I wonder what makes him think his “intelligence” was so “darn good.” You say the CIA screwed up, I say the White House leaned on the CIA and ended up with a great scape goat. The proof is right in front of us.
You want proof that the CIA very likely told the President that the uranium statement was shakey? Just look to his Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who didn’t use such allegations in his UN speech.
[Colin Powell] said Thursday that he had reservations about the information used in the speech and thus did not use it Feb. 5 in a speech to the U.N. Security Council in which he offered a detailed catalogue of alleged Iraqi transgressions.
The President gave his address on January 28th and Powell his to the UN on February 5th, a mere eight days apart. I find it hard to believe that Powell knew that the intelligence was shaky, but the President nor Ms. Rice didn't have a clue.
I think that the CIA told them that the intelligence was shaky, but that the White House pressured them by saying the British backed the intelligence, which lead to some *very* small modifications.
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
It was with this small modification, in my opinion, that the CIA decided to approve the statement. After all, the blame could be placed on the British if the statement was proved false in the future. But what has happened is the White House blames the CIA for not taking the line out because the CIA should be smarter than the Brits, right? Of course they are, which is why the CIA has a big can of "I told you so" that it can't use despite being right in the first place.
Then again maybe it's just that the White House is confident enough to lie to American, but not quite arrogant enough to lie to the UN.
Posted by joestump at July 14, 2003 06:28 PMI think the real story here is being sidelined by the intelligence scandal; people need to know “Was Iraq a threat to American security? How?”. I think that’s the big issue that has to be proved and without a doubt is going to cast a shadow over this administration until it is answered.
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at July 14, 2003 06:47 PMI agree, Stephen. All of these specifics are a sideshow. Taken as a whole (Niger, Aluminum Tubes, UAVs with WMD, 6 months from a Nuke, al Qaeda link, very specific claims of WMD amounts and locations, the great ease of the post-war occupation, and other claims), it becomes quite clear that the GWB administration’s case for a threat to US national security is extremely weak.
In order to wage a war, the President must prove that there is a national security threat. Furthermore, he must not lie in doing so. Bush must answer these questions. We must have a full-scale inquiry into all of our intelligence.
Nothing could be less important.
Posted by: Timothy Klein at July 14, 2003 10:12 PMI find it interesting that very few people have pointed out that George H.W. Bush was the director of the CIA for almost a full year.
Former President George Bush was Director of Central Intelligence and head of the Central Intelligence Agency from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977.
In fact, there is a CIA building named after him.
We know that President Bush often consults with his father on matters of national security, and considering his father’s role in the CIA, we’d see the CIA trying to defend itself from the patsy position it has found itself in.
Is it possible the CIA is letting itself take the fall because there is something much larger at stake: the Presidency and the role of the GOP in modern politics?
Posted by: Cam at July 15, 2003 12:49 AMFocus the microscope on 9-11. Did the GWB regime know things that could have prevented 9-11? Begin intense non-partisan public discussion of things that so far are only in the arena of conspiracy, and mainly on the Internet. Point the microscope at REAL evidence such as the self-interest issues of the Bush regime in getting control and oil in AFghanistan and Iraq. Who? Why? When? Where? The causal history of the current wars is as important or more so than just focusing on ‘darn good intelligence’. Let’s get to the bottom of this nest of lies. And let’s do it before FEMA and Bush EXECUTE our freedom even more with Patriot Act 2.
Posted by: monty squier at July 19, 2003 11:13 AMCould you imagine how the republicans would come down on a democratic president for the same thing ? Partisan rancor is doing great harm to America.
This is no scandal. What do you expect ? Of course they were going to make the strongest case they could even if that meant using some flimsy evidence ; Particularly with all of the lies being pumped out by enemy propaganda machines. We still don’t know that this wasn’t true.
This is getting as ridiculous as the so-called Lewinsky scandal. The financial scandals are real scandals and we should be focusing on them but neither corrupt party wants that.
Posted by: macer at July 21, 2003 08:02 AM
