| President Bush's apparent order authorizing a senior White House official to reveal to a reporter previously classified intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium came as the information was already being discredited by several other officials in the administration, interviews and documents from the time show.
A review of the records and interviews conducted during and after the crucial period in June and July of 2003 also show that what the aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., said he was authorized to portray as a "key judgment" by intelligence officers had in fact been given much less prominence in the most important assessment of Iraq's weapons capability[...] The court filing asserts that Mr. Bush authorized the disclosure of the intelligence in part to rebut claims that Mr. Wilson was making, including those in a television appearance and in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times on July 6, 2003. The filing revealed for the first time testimony by Mr. Libby saying that Mr. Bush, through Mr. Cheney, had authorized Mr. Libby to tell reporters that "a key judgment of the N.I.E. held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." In fact, that was not one of the "key judgments" of the document. Instead, it was the subject of several paragraphs on Page 24 of the document, which also acknowledged that Mr. Hussein had long possessed 500 tons of uranium that was under seal by international inspectors, and that no intelligence agencies had ever confirmed whether he had obtained any more of the material from Africa. A report by the British in 2004, however, concluded that there was a reasonable basis to conclude that Mr. Hussein had sought to obtain uranium from Africa. Once enriched, uranium can be used for weapons fuel. In addition to Mr. Powell, other administration officials, speaking on a not-for-attribution basis in early July 2003, were also acknowledging that the intelligence was widely known as seriously flawed. Ari Fleischer, then the White House spokesman, acknowledged as much publicly in a White House briefing on July 7, 2003. But if the new court filing is correct, the next day, Mr. Libby, on behalf of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, provided an exaggerated account of the intelligence conclusions. |
That's as close as they NYT has ever come to calling them liars. Which, if Libby is telling the truth in his grand jury testimony, is precisely what they were. Is it unreasonable to think that they would willingly lie to the public but not to a court of law? I think so. In both cases its easy for me to see how their own self-interest might compel it.
It's not that I don't already know they lied us into a war. I do. It's that little but little we are finally seeing the empirical evidence that proves my perceptions match reality.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent over at Tapped reminds us... There is a smoking gun, and its out there waiting to be found. One piece of paper is all it would take to definitely prove Bush knew he was lying, a piece of paper for which the only defense would be "I never read that." But given that it is the executive summary of the National Intelligence Estimate completed prior to the war in Iraq, I'm not sure that's a claim that Bush would want to make. Will someone get their hands on that piece of paper? Only time will tell...
Greg has a second post that reminds me of a point I forgot to make earlier. This whole "if the president authorizes it, it isn't a leak" thing is ridiculous. If Libby wasn't "leaking" the info, if the NIE had in fact been declassified, why did he insist Judith Miller use anonymous sourcing for the disclosure? Not only would that be unnecessary, it would be silly. Or stupid. Or dishonest. Take your pick.
--------
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: ABOUT THOSE LEAKS....
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.alexwhalen.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/279



Leave a comment