Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11 July 2003
Legitimate questions have arisen (1) about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech.
These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. (2)
There was fragmentary intelligence (3) gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq.
He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states (4) for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office.
The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted (5) .
Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium (6) from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution (7) , but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.
In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq (8 ) . We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.
Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion (9) but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.
In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting (10) .
Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them (11) .
The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported (12)
|
Not "
A foreign government service has learned..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
...that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure "uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq.
Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious (13) ."
An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting (14) .
The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech.(15) This was a mistake (16) .
Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence (17) with National Security Council colleagues.
Some of the language was changed (18 ) . From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct -- i.e. that the British government report said (19)
|
Not "
the British government has learned..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
...that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.
This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches (20) , and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
------------------
So heres the whole thing.
Will you cherry pick the one line that suits your argument as the truth and forsake the rest?
|
So, here's the thing: I cherry picked 20 lines out of that speech that, to one extent or another, support my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
Here is the reference of the 'former official' from Joe Wilsons 1999 trip,where the 'expanding business' overture was thought to have meant uranium purchases.
|
So Wilson is credible when he says he has evidence Iraq was seeking and he isn't credible when he says he has evidence Iraq wasn't seeking? Who is cherry picking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
According to the CIA the line shouldnt have been in there given what the CIA had,but it seems to me
|
Quote:
|
"It seems to me the British government seems to have learned that Saddam Hussein seems to have recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
|
Much better! No one could even begin to make a case that a statement such as that contains a lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRelevant
...that many other countries had better relations and intel than the US in Africa and that is the intel Bush highlighted.
As for oil being the 'business' c'mon....lol
|
No one has any evidence describing what that 'business' might be. I know what "it seems to you," and you can make any truthful statement about that you like; as long as it starts with
"It seems to me..."
07-03-2008, 10:40 AM
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
