White House Cites 'Compelling Evidence' of Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program

[Judi Lynn]

White House Cites 'Compelling Evidence' of Iraqi Nuclear Weapons Program
Report Released as Campaign to Counter Intelligence Criticism Begun


By John J. Lumpkin
The Associated Press
Friday, July 18, 2003; 2:57 PM


An intelligence assessment last October cites "compelling evidence" that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program, according to documents released Friday by the White House.

Mounting a campaign to counter criticism that it used flawed intelligence to justify war with Iraq, the White House made public excerpts of the intelligence community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. That report helped shaped now-challenged comments by President Bush in his State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa.

The report asserts that Baghdad "if left unchecked...probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and "possibly" Congo. (snip/...)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11472-2003Jul18.html

[trumad]

1. Let's let Josh Marshall put this in perspective..

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/july0303#071803309pm

[benfranklin1776]

4. Good rebuttal by Mr. Marshall

I also point out the use of the words in the intelligence estimate "if left unchecked" would have attempted to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program. No one was advocating leaving him unchecked. The issue was whether inspections and sanctions were sufficient to thwart his ambitions and whether there was an imminent and clear threat to justify war and death. Clearly the information in this report was not a compelling reason to abandon the inspections and wage war. Clearly though PNAC was.

[dfong63]

9. i like it

Like the female employee and her grabby boss, how many times does she have to say 'no' before the behavior becomes inappropriate?

excellent analogy.

[asjr]

2. evidence

They just don't give up. Lies and more lies.

[TahitiNut]

3. Japanese carrier fleet is underway to attack Pearl Harbor. Attack First!

Oops. Nope. Their carrier fleet wassn't yet underway, but it would've been.
Oops. Nope. They don't really have a carrier fleet, but it was under construction.
Oops. Nope. It's wasn't really under construction, but they had plans and materials.
Oops. Nope. They didn't have materials, but they had a program to develop the plans.
Oops. Nope. They really aren't plans for a carrier fleet, but they would've used their fishing boats. :eyes:

[Guaranteed]

6. Reminds me of an old joke.....

An old man borrows a neighbor's lawn mower. The neighbor is dismayed to find that it's broken when he gets it back.
Confronted by his neighbor, the old man offers up the defense that, "First off, I NEVER borrowed your lawn mower. Secondly, it was FINE when I brought it back to you! Besides, it was already broken when you gave it to me!"

:wtf:

[robbedvoter]

5. During this decade - if left unchecked? UN inspectors were checking

last I heard - before bushco went gungho and decided we don't have time for inspections! Also, nice try, bushco, but one DOES NOT declare preemptive war for a PROGRAM! You said they were nuking us in 45 minutes! (Yes, W too repeated the Poodle's whoper last year)

[Nottingham]

7. This is pretty weak defense!

:bounce:

[Guaranteed]

8. I don't get it...

Why was this in the Oct report when in the very same month Tenet was telling the White House not to be going around saying these things?

[damnraddem]

10. This decade? A nuclear program this decade?

So we had to invade last spring -- couldn't let UN inspectors continue? What a bunch of jerks!

[dfong63]

11. this isn't evidence

this isn't evidence of fact, it's evidence of an opinion. and it's not compelling either, except maybe as a sign of desperation.

[saigon68]

13. ITS a CROCK OF SHIT

Unbelievable. One has to be toaly BRAIN DEAD to accept this explanation.

You could almost sustitute any country in the sentence

that St. Kitts or (insert country here) "if left unchecked...probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

[TahitiNut]

19. The Busholnis don't have mere 'opinions'.

They have profound beliefs: revelations based on the Word of God. Only the hoi polloi have 'opinions.' :eyes:

[gratuitous]

12. "Compelling" apparently means something else in Oregon

Because I sure don't see what's so "compelling" about mights, maybes, coulds and unsubstantiated reports. Cause for concern? Perhaps. Casus belli? Not a chance.

But maybe the "compelling evidence" was the poll numbers coming out of the summer that showed that people were beginning to tire of the corrupt Bush administration? They had a new product line all ready to roll in September, and flogged it relentlessly during the next two months to hang onto their slim majorities in the House and the Senate.

What will they have for campaign 2004? And will the media swallow the bullshit and pronounce it filet mignon again? The public will be in dire need of Republican-style re-edumacating by then, methinks.

[TahitiNut]

20. Compelling, as in 'compulsive liars'.

Habitual ignorance amd close-mindedness is often claimed to be certitude - where 'opinion' is a castle in the sky, not founded on knowledge but on hearsay and rumor.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. Hmmmmm...

As a result of the flap, the White House pledged to redouble efforts to make certain that questionable material did not find its way into presidential speeches.

They're gonna redouble their efforts. No need to worry.

[sangha]

15. Two times zero

is.....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. = Twice as hard as they were trying before.

Jeez, what more can they do for you that they're not already doing?


Sarc/Sangha

[TEXASYANKEE]

17. Cheney spin.

But didn't Cheney tell fat Tim Russert on Meet the Press that he (Cheney) believed that Saddam HAD nuclear capability? This misAdministration lies worse than a 5-year old trying to avoid a spanking.

[HiroP]

18. Let's see what Ray McGovern/VIPS wrote about that "compelling" NIE

It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that "we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that "most analysts" agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion.

<snip>

Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts--those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons--judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right.
Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote.
It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president's state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vips07142003.html

[democrat in Tallahassee]

21. Yawn, wake me up when they say something worth hearing. zzzzzzzzzz

n/t

[gratuitous]

22. You'll sleep for a long time, but . . .

But keep up on these things, because you just know a lot of people are going to see the words "compelling evidence" and think, "Yeah, see? They had compelling evidence. They didn't just send a quarter million military personnel over there for a lie." And it will be up to you to explain why the "evidence" (possible but unlikely scenarios, innuendo, hearsay, and just plain gossip) wasn't very "compelling" after all.

[BuckeFushe]

23. Draw your own conclusions from these three little sentences

The material released by the White House also included a "footnote" by the State Department that said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."

The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded: "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing ... an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."

It also expresses "low confidence" that Saddam would engage in attacks on the U.S. homeland or "in desperation" share chemical and biological weapons with al-Qaida terrorists.


Anyone want to tell me why we went to war if this was the actual analysis?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

24. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=21760&mesg_id=21760&page=

DTH
DU Moderator