A Proud Member of the Reality-Based
Community
|
Click here to go back to our main Iraq page
PRESIDENT BUSH'S STATE OF THE UNION STATEMENT RELATING TO SADDAM AND URANIUM FROM AFRICA : A response to Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler)
Note: As of 9-25-03, a much more detailed rebuttal on this topic is available at my sister site Compassiongate. Do check that out.
Bob Somerby, whom I
respect very
very
highly, has recently been showing one of the reasons I respect him very
much - he has been defending the Bush administration on the "16
words"! The point of this note however is to highlight that his
defense of the Bush WH (e.g., here
and here)
is not as strong as it would seem to appear. I've been sitting relatively
on the sidelines on this issue analyzing the various statements by the
Bush administration on this topic, but I think timeliness is important -
so this needs to be stated now.
First, let me acknowledge that Somerby is partly right. He makes valid
points about those writers who refer to the State of the Union address
and Niger in the same sentence. Bush made no mention of Niger in the SOTU.
Given how the Press has
behaved in the past on matters of accuracy in reporting, this should
not be a shocker. But the Press is not entirely to blame for this as I
explain below.
I am prepared to take at face value that the President's statement is
merely misleading ("learned" vs. "said") but
apparently accurate (since it refers to the British). But in all cases of
analysis, one needs to look not merely at what has been stated in that
sentence and its latest interpretation, but what else has happened
surrounding the interpretation of that sentence. Leave aside all the
controversy about who knew what and when they knew it and whether they
hid what they knew or did not know. Rather, focus on how the
administration responded to the media attention to the uranium issue.
The facts about those 16 words are not as clear as Somerby seems to think they are. As he says here:
But the most striking conflation is
found in the lead of Nicholas
Kristof’s column this morning:
KRISTOF (pgh 1): After I wrote a month ago about the Niger uranium hoax in the State of the Union address, a senior White House official chided me gently and explained that there was more to the story that I didn’t know.Apparently, there’s a great deal to this story that Kristof doesn’t know, like what the Bush Admin said all weekend. Did Bush’s statement constitute a “Niger uranium hoax?” All weekend long, major spokesmen explained that Bush’s statement concerned nations other than Niger. But legions of scribes don’t seem to have heard. Kristof is just one of many. For the record, Kristof pushes this point very hard. He persistently implies that Bush’s statement was a reference to Niger only. |
In a literal sense, Somerby is right - as I acknowledged at the top of this note. However, let's analyze the history further.
However, let's go back to the Tim Russert - Condi Rice exchange in Meet the Press on June 8 (bold text/red coloring is my emphasis):
| MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you a
specific comment the president made in his State of the Union
message on January 28, 2003, when he talked about uranium
from Africa. Let’s
watch: (Videotape, January 28): PRES. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. (End videotape) MR. RUSSERT: Now, five weeks later, this is what appeared in The Washington Post: “A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations’ chief nuclear inspector said in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq’s secret nuclear ambitions. Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed ‘not authentic’ after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts... ‘We fell for it,’ said one U.S. official who reviewed the documents.” In light of that, should the president retract those comments? And should there be a full, open government investigation into our intelligence agencies? DR. RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time—no one knew at the time, in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. But the—it was a relatively small part of the case about nuclear weapons and nuclear reconstitution. It is also the case that the broad picture about Iraq’s programs was a picture that went very far back in time. Let me take for a minute that DIA report that you just talked about because there’s a lot of selective quotation going on here. [eRiposte: The interview continues as the topic diverges to investigations and other WMDs and away from Africa.] |
Here is my point. Tim Russert made no mention whatsoever of Niger (at least per the above MSNBC web transcript). He mentioned Africa no less than three times, and not once did he say Niger. He phrased the Niger hoax in such a way that the word "Africa" was used instead of "Niger" - both when referring to the President's speech and when referring to the Niger flap. And how did Condi respond?
We did not know at the time—no one knew at the time, in our circles—maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course, it was information that was mistaken. |
What's significant about that?
| Not A WORD
from Condi about the remarkable need to separate Niger and Africa!
If Ms. Rice. and the Bush administration for that matter, was so clear that the SOTU case was built around "Africa" and not "Niger", how come she said NOTHING, ZILCH, NADA about that distinction in this interview? Is the Press now responsible for reaching a justifiable inference that if Condi did not specifically bring up "Africa" as opposed to "Niger", then that is because the SOTU charge was really based on Niger, not Africa in general? |
Before you start to say anything, note that this doesn't end with Condi Rice.
Let's take Ari Fleischer.
What did Mr. Fleischer say previously? Let's read carefully this admittedly confusing exchange with reporters on July 7 (via TalkingPointsMemo) - again, with bold/red text being my emphasis:
| Q: So are you
saying the President's broader reference to Africa, which included
other countries that were named in the NIE, were those also
incorrect?
FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's statement in the State of the Union was much broader than the Niger question. Q: Is the President's statement correct? FLEISCHER: I'm referring specifically to the Niger piece when I say that. Q: Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct? FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery. Q: The President's statement was accurate? FLEISCHER: We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement. Q: Ari, that means that, indeed, you all believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation; is that correct? FLEISCHER: What the President said in his statement was that according to a British report they were trying to obtain uranium. When I answered the question it was, again, specifically about the Niger piece involving yellow cake. Q: So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true? FLEISCHER: I'm sorry? Q: If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe -- FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it. The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger. Q: So it was wrong? FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on -- Q: The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect? FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger. Q: Well, wait a minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the national intelligence -- FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union. Q: Which gets to the crux of what Ambassador Wilson is now alleging -- that he provided this information to the State Department and the CIA 11 months before the State of the Union and he is amazed that it, nonetheless, made it into the State of the Union address. He believes that that information was deliberately ignored by the White House. Your response to that? FLEISCHER: And that's way, again, he's making the statement that -- he is saying that surely the Vice President must have known, or the White House must have known. And that's not the case, prior to the State of the Union. Q: He's saying that surely people at the decision-making level within the NSC would have known the information which he -- passed on to both the State Department and the CIA. FLEISCHER: And the information about the yellow cake and Niger was not specifically known prior to the State of the Union by the White House. Q: What does that say about communications? FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically. Q: But, Ari, even if you said that the Niger thing was wrong, the next line has usually been that the President's statement was deliberately broader than Niger, it referred to all of Africa. The national intelligence estimate discusses other countries in Africa that there were attempts to purchase yellow cake from, or other sources of uranium -- FLEISCHER: Let me do this, David. On your specific question I'm going to come back and post the specific answer on the broader statement on the speech. |
Ari Fleischer had a perfect opportunity to explain what the White House wants us to believe TODAY - i.e., the distinction between "Africa" and "Niger". What did Ari say?
| FLEISCHER:
...The President's statement was based on the predicate of the
yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So
given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out
to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader
statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was
based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.
Q: So it was wrong? FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on -- Q: The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect? FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger. |
The reporter was very careful to ask AGAIN and repeatedly asked about the distinction between Africa and Niger! And what was Ari's response?
| Q: Well, wait a
minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on
Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the
national intelligence --
FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union. |
The last sentence itself leaves above a lot to be desired - but I will talk about that some other time.
My own inferences from the above exchange are as follows:
Ari was trying to imply that Bush's
"broader" statement referred to Britain and was therefore
correct. The reason he gave - FOUR TIMES,
not just once - for Bush's speech being wrong was that --
At the end of the exchange in the cited portion above Ari seems to have realized that he better be careful before he says something else - and he asks for more time to explain the "broader statement". But, folks, the White House must have known the answer to this question at the time of this exchange! This topic had been in the media for so long that it is impossible, impossible, to buy ANY excuse that Condi or Ari had no time to "research" the subject to provide the correct answer! Condi Rice's MTP
interview date = 6/8/03 |
Of course, you will tell me here that things happened in between! Yes, they did. Here is something important that happened.
In between the two dates above (6/8/03 and 7/7/03), not unexpectedly the NSC issued this statement on 6/13/03 - as reported by the AP (via Atrios) - bold/red text is my emphasis:
|
Wow, about 3+ weeks before Ari said what he did, the NSC says something totally different!
Well, with popcorn in hand then (inspired by Atrios), we see the following SUBSEQUENT White House statement on 7/7/03:
|
Bob, do you see what is going on here? Again, if the Bush administration is so clear this has to do with Africa and not Niger, that the evidence is solid but not solid enough for a SOTU etc., it is certainly not allowing anyone to understand its views easily. Not to mention that Tenet, Hadley, etc. are in confessional mode, that Powell said the "evidence" did not stand the "test of time" over a week later, even though the NSC claims it did on 6/13/03.
The bottomline? Even if we assumed Africa was the focal point (and not Niger), here is a part of the remarkable evolution of our "intelligence" on Uranium from Africa:
| Intelligence believed to be OK on 1/28/03 Intelligence did not "stand the test of time" (for Powell's speech) by 2/5/03 Intelligence categorically OK on 6/13/03 (and retroactively OK back to the SOTU) Intelligence was based and "predicated" on Niger and therefore not OK on 7/7/03 Intelligence was based on "other reporting" (and thus Africa, not Niger alone) but still not good enough for us to "be certain" on 7/7/03 Intelligence is "technically correct" (presumably because the British feel "confident") and OK sometime after this... Last point |