Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When did Bush "retract" the 16 words he said in the SOTU?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:05 PM
Original message
When did Bush "retract" the 16 words he said in the SOTU?
I guess I missed that. Oliphant surprised me tonight when he said that on Hardball?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't think he did
Tenet took the heat - stated they should not have been in the address.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. He didn't. It was according to BRITTISH intel
or so was the excuse.

Excuses, excuses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joemurphy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Tenet said they shouldn't have been in the State of the Union
one day after Wilson's article ran. July 7, 2003 if I'm not mistaken.

That's what makes Rove's campaign to defame Wilson so amazing. It wasn't necessary to say anything. He outed Wilson's wife out of sheer vindictiveness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. Anyone who saw "Uncovered" remember when Rice said -
on Meet the Press sometime after the SOTU that the 16 words were taken out of a speech by Tenet sometime in the fall of 2002 but oops, we forgot and left them in for the SOTU.

Oops...we just forgot.

asshole

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
5. If you missed it, I wonder if anyone else might have missed it too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LizW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
6. July 7, 2003 - the day AFTER Wilson's article ran
The WH finally backed off the 16 words claim. They released this statement:

"There is other reporting to suggest that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Africa; However, the information is not detailed or specific enough for us to be certain that attempts were in fact made." (New York Times)



However, at the same time, Rice and Rumsfeld were still saying that there was other evidence that Saddam tried to get uranium from Africa.

Of course, they never have produced this evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. Tenet's acknowledgment "raises more questions than it answers"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0715words.htm

"Not Just Sixteen Words"
By Senator Carl Levin
Truthout
July 15, 2003


Congressional Record
108th Congress
First Session

Iraq Intelligence

Last week, CIA Director George Tenet accepted responsibility for having gone along with the African uranium statement in the President's State of the Union address. His acknowledgment that it should not have been included in the address and his acceptance of responsibility were appropriate. But his explanation of the CIA's acquiescence in allowing the use of a clearly misleading statement raises more questions than it answers, and statements by other administration officials, particularly National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, compound the problem.

Even more troubling, however, is the fact that the uranium statement appears to be but one of a number of several questionable statements and exaggerations by the Intelligence Community and Administration officials that were issued in the buildup to the war. The importance of objective and credible intelligence cannot be overstated. It is therefore essential that we have a thorough, open and bipartisan inquiry into the objectivity, credibility and use of U.S. intelligence before the Iraq war.

First, relative to the uranium issue: the President in his State of the Union message said that the British government had learned that Iraq recently sought to purchase significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The sole purpose of that statement was to make the American people believe that the American government believed the statement to be true and that it was strong evidence of Iraq's attempt to obtain nuclear weapons. But the truth was that, at the very time the words were spoken, our government did not believe it was true. Condoleezza Rice's effort to justify the statement on the grounds that it was "technically accurate" doesn't address the heart of the matter, which is that the statement was calculated to create a false impression. It is simply wrong to make a statement whose purpose is to make people believe something when you do not believe it yourself.

It is all well and good that the CIA has acknowledged its role in caving in to pressure from the National Security Council to concur in something which it did not believe. But Director Tenet's acknowledgment raises further questions of who was pushing the false impression at the National Security Council. The NSC should not misuse intelligence that way.

The President's statement that Iraq was attempting to acquire African uranium was not a "mistake." It was not inadvertent. It was not a slip. It was negotiated between the CIA and the NSC. It was calculated. It was misleading. And what compounds its misleading nature is that the CIA not only "differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting" to use Director Tenet's words, but the CIA had also "expressed reservations," again using Director Tenet's words, to the British in September 2002, nearly five months before the State of Union address. Furthermore, the CIA pressed the White House to remove a similar reference from the President's speech on October 7, 2002, and the White House did so - nearly four months before the State of the Union address.

The uranium issue is not just about sixteen words. It is about the conscious decisions that were made, apparently by the NSC and concurred in by the CIA, to create a false impression. And it is not an isolated example. There is troubling evidence of other dubious statements and exaggerations by the Intelligence Community and Administration officials.

Aluminum tubes: In a speech before the UN General Assembly on September 12th, 2002, President Bush said "Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." In fact, an unclassified intelligence assessment in October acknowledged that some intelligence specialists "believe that these tubes are probably intended for conventional weapons programs," and on February 5th, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council that "we all know there are differences of opinion," and that "there is controversy about what these tubes are for." The International Atomic Energy Agency, after conducting an inquiry into the aluminum tubes issue concluded they were not for uranium enrichment.

Iraq-al Qaeda connection: On September 27 of last year, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the Administration's search for hard evidence for a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. He said "we ended up with five or six sentences that were bullet-proof. We could say them, they are factual, they are exactly accurate. They demonstrate that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq." While Secretary Rumsfeld later went on to say "they are not beyond a reasonable doubt," he did not say there was considerable uncertainty in the Intelligence Community about the nature and extent of ties, if any, between Iraq and al Qaeda. It was certainly never a "bullet- proof" case.

Nuclear reconstitution: Last Sunday, Ms. Rice said "we have never said that we thought he had nuclear weapons." But Vice President Cheney said on March 16 "we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Certainty that Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons: On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." On September 26, 2002, President Bush said "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons." On March 17, 2003, President Bush told the nation that "intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And on March 30, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." The fruitless search to date for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction during and after our entry into Iraq suggests that our intelligence was either way off the mark or seriously stretched.

Mobile biological warfare labs: On May 28, 2003, the CIA posted on its website a document it prepared with the Defense Intelligence Agency entitled "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants." This report concluded that the two trailers found in Iraq were for biological warfare agent production, even though other experts and intelligence community members do not agree with that conclusion, or believe there is not enough evidence to reach such a conclusion. None of these alternative views were posted on the CIA's web page.

White House Web Site Photos: On October 8, 2002, the White House placed three sets of satellite photos on its web site, with the headline "Construction at three Iraqi nuclear weapons-related facilities". Although one of the facilities was not nuclear-related, the captions of the photos gave the impression that Iraq was proceeding with work on weapons of mass destruction at these facilities, although UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections at these facilities found no prohibited activities or weapons. For the Al Furat Manufacturing Facility, the caption notes that "the building was originally intended to house a centrifuge enrichment cascade operation supporting Iraq's uranium enrichment efforts," and that after construction resumed in 2001, "the building appears operational."

So the misleading statement about African uranium is not an isolated issue. There is a significant amount of troubling evidence that it was part of a pattern of exaggeration and misleading statements. That is what a thorough, open and bipartisan investigation should examine.

Finally, Mr. President, again relative to the uranium statement, I am deeply troubled by Ms. Rice's continuing justification of the use of the statement in the President's State of the Union address. She repeatedly says it was "accurate," despite the fact that its clear aim was to create a false impression. Her statement and Director Tenet's statement raise more questions than they answer. Here are some of those questions:

1. Who in the Administration was pressing the CIA to concur in a statement that the CIA did not believe was true, and why did they do so even after the CIA objected to the text?

2. Who at the CIA was involved in pressing the White House to remove the similar reference from the October 7th speech, and what reasons did they give for removing it?

3. Who in the White House was involved in removing a similar reference from the President's speech on October 7th, nearly four months before the State of the Union speech?

4. Who at the CIA knew about the decision to tell the British intelligence service in September, 2002 of CIA's "reservations" about the inclusion of references to Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa in the British intelligence service's September 24 dossier?

5. Given the doubts of the U.S. Intelligence Community, why didn't the President say in his State of the Union speech not only that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," but that "our U.S. Intelligence Community has serious doubts about such reporting"?

6. How and when did the US government receive the forged documents on Niger, and when did it become aware that they might be bogus?

7. What role did the Office of the Vice President have in bringing about an inquiry into Iraq's purported efforts to obtain uranium from Africa? Was the Vice President's staff briefed on the results of Ambassador Wilson's trip to Africa?


These and many other questions underscore the critical importance of a thorough, open and bipartisan inquiry into the objectivity and credibility of intelligence concerning the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq immediately before the war and the alleged Iraq-al Qaeda connection, and the use of such intelligence by the Department of Defense in policy decisions, military planning and the conduct of operations in Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-14-05 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. Herr Busch never retracted those 16 words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC