- Joseph Wilson - From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct. 29, 2003, fact check
George Tenet and the 16 Words
On Plame Leak, Rove and Others Seem Guilty By Their Reactions
Americablog
Two years ago, George Tenet claimed full responsibility for the CIA's mistakes, even though they were not his direct mistakes. It's a bit of a mystery. Tenet cannot understand how those infamous 16 words could have gotten into President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech. According to Tenet, he had recommended they be dropped, yet somehow, through some agency official, they were allowed to stay in.
In a press release on July 11, 2003 (two years ago almost to the day), Tenet said:
Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.Who are these "Agency officials?"..these "cognizant elements of the agency?" Why did he (or she or they) disregard the CIA head's clear recommendation?
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.
In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them...
...The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake....
.... Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. 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 with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. 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 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, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed...
... I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency....
...These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President...
- George Tenet
Will he (or she) take the fall for someone far higher up?
To add to the mystery, the subsequent Senate Intelligence Committee report, which investigated the 16 words, conflicts with Tenet's statement. It says that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him. Yet, if you read Tenet's statement, it isn't very clear AT ALL.
Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.
See ex-CIA Larry Johnson's statements about Valerie Plame at TPM.
Josh Marshall had said, on July 11, 2003:
But all of this begs the obvious and singularly important question: the charge is that CIA didn't push hard enough to keep bogus information out of the president's speech. Who was pushing on the other side? Who was pushing to keep the bogus information in? And why?
Ken Mehlman and the RNC are so very desperate to protect President Bush that they are actually referring people to this damaging statement by Tenet, simply because it backs up Karl Rove's statement about CIA deciding to send someone (Wlison) to Niger. This, of course, gave no right to someone at Rove's level to out any CIA operative to so many journalists. He was too hot to score a political point and betrayed his country in the process. His zeal carried him too far this time.
What does Judy Miller know? Who does she know? How does she know what she knows?
One has to wonder. George Tenet quit the same time that Bush hired a criminal attorney to represent him. By the way, the CIA is part of the Executive Branch, and I don't see George Tenet hanging around the Executive Branch anymore. Using the question posed by Katherine Yurica, "did the CIA director, George Tenet, take full responsibility for the inclusion of false material in President George Bush's State of the Union address, or did he expose the game plan to the world?
I can't see Karl Rove surviving any of this with an administration position intact. There is no excuse for what he has done - the fatheaded traitor to America.
As I have said before, this is about the cover-up, just as it is about the leak itself.
This - from a Time magazine article by Matt Cooper (with two other writers) July 17, 2003:
A source close to the matter says that Wilson was dispatched to Niger because Vice President Dick Cheney had questions about an intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium and that he asked that the CIA get back to him with answers. Cheney's staff has adamantly denied and Tenet has reinforced the claim that the Vice President had anything to do with initiating the Wilson mission. They say the Vice President merely asked routine questions at an intelligence briefing and that mid-level CIA officials, on their own, chose to dispatch Wilson.This goes beyond Karl Rove, and the fact that Bush refuses to fire him and sends Ken Mehlman out to spew "Partisan attack!" on all the networks, with no reasonable alibi for Rove, leads me to believe there are many more vulnerable criminals waiting in the West Wing to be found out.
In an exclusive interview Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME: "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). The Vice President was unaware of the trip by Ambassador Wilson and didn't know about it until this year when it became public in the last month or so. " Other senior Administration officials, including National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, have also claimed that they had not heard of Wilson's report until recently.
You might want to read The Oklahoma Hippie's theory [TPM]
Joshua Zeitz thinks this case is going to be a biggie and agrees that this is about the cover-up of the leak, just as much as it is about the leak itself.