IraqGate- Wyden: "The White House political staff was looking at every rock"

posted by ewing2001 on Wednesday July 16, @03:59PM

Senate Dems Rip White House on Iraq Claim

AP -Wed, Jul 16, 2003 Update: New Waxman letter (07/15)

Photo: Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senate Democrats insisted Wednesday that the White House was clearly responsible for including false information about Iraq's weapons program in President Bush's State of the Union speech...

Advertisement

...Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said the issue wasn't why Tenet failed to keep the information out of the speech but who was so determined to put it in and why.

"All roads still lead back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," he said, referring to the White House address. "The question is, Who in the White House was so determined to put information in the State of the Union which had been discounted so dramatically by American intelligence sources?"

Durbin and other Democrats said Tenet had named White House officials who had sought to include the information in the speech, but the Democrats declined to identify them, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings.

Responding to a question, committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said White House officials could possibly be called before the panel to discuss the handling of the intelligence.

He described Tenet as "very contrite. He was very candid, very forthcoming. He accepted full responsibility." Tenet did not speak to reporters, except to describe his appearance as an "uplifting experience" as he left.

Roberts said it was clear "there were mistakes made up and down the chain." He said the hearing reaffirmed his belief that "the handling of this was sloppy."

Roberts also said he expected to hold open hearings on the Iraq intelligence, probably in September...

...Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said "the CIA in my judgment was not pushing to have this matter of Niger included in the State of the Union speech."

"I believe that there was if not a battle royal between the CIA staff and the White House staff, certainly some back and forth," he said. "I believe that in this case, the White House political staff was looking at every rock, every nook and cranny to make their case and I believe the political staff prevailed," he said...

...Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., a presidential candidate and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Bush should take responsibility for the reference to the Niger uranium.

"The responsibility is not the CIA's; it's not anyone else's. It is the president's responsibility. And those 16 words (about the uranium) were spoken by the president and he has to take responsibility for them," he said.

Leaders face growing pressure for answers over Iraq

Independent -17 July 2003

By Rupert Cornwell, Washington Bureau Chief

17 July 2003

Only three months ago, they were the smiling masters of the universe, liberators who had watched their armies roll up a supposedly formidable Middle Eastern foe as easily as a child swats away a fly. How different it will be when George Bush and Tony Blair meet in Washington today.

Reports of the end of a political love affair are premature. On Iraq, the President and the Prime Minister are locked together, and they know it. But was there ever a meeting more unhappily timed? The last person, surely, that Mr Blair would want to be seen with is the ally he is accused of following meekly into the increasingly costly and unhappy Iraq adventure. For his part, Mr Bush must share the podium with the leader of the country whose intelligence services, which are quoted as the authors of the uranium-from-Africa fantasy, have indirectly led him into the hottest water of his presidency.

But any reciprocal doubts will probably remain hidden. Their abilities to express themselves in public may differ, but the two men share above all a fierce and unquestioning self-belief in the rightness of their common cause.

And make no mistake, Americans love Mr Blair (though what with the row over the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and the difficulties faced by British companies in securing Iraq reconstruction contracts, the affection is less than obvious). When he addresses the assembled Senate and House today, the cheers will be genuine, grateful and deeply admiring.

Barely a day passes without a clip of Mr Blair on the news, defending himself before a raucous array of critics, giving at least as good as he gets. How much easier for Mr Bush, protected by Americans' innate respect for his office, and with a phalanx of proxies to defend him - the polished, oh-so- reasonable Secretary of State Colin Powell, the tenacious Condoleezza Rice, his national security adviser, and George Tenet, CIA chief and (thus far) willing fall-guy for the Niger fiasco. And just as well. This week a limp and stumbling Mr Bush managed to make the ludicrous claim that he only decided on war after he "gave Saddam Hussein a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them" (when of course it was Mr Bush who ordered the UN team out so he could launch his war).

But cracks are opening in the façade of the most monolithic, best-disciplined White House of modern times. Ms Rice and Mr Tenet point fingers at each other. The neo-con hawks have fallen silent. Even the bullying Donald Rumsfeld was subjected to what passes for a "grilling" on Capitol Hill about the current Iraq shambles, (though compared with what Mr Blair must handle in London it was tame). But for how much longer will able courtiers take the heat for the tongue-tied monarch? Will Mr Bush take the hit our Prime Minister has taken? The answer depends less on who-knew-what-and-when about the Niger forgeries than on events on the ground, in Iraq and beyond.

For the moment, the Bush machine rolls mightily along. Money, they say, is a politician's best friend. The President has raised more of it - $34m (£21m) for his re-election campaign in the past three months - than his nine declared Democratic rivals combined.

His approval rating remains a healthy 60 per cent or so. But the intelligence and organisational mess over Iraq has led to the first serious, sustained criticism of his competence on national security issues, since 11 September, his greatest political asset.

Yesterday another US soldier died in a "hostile incident" near Baghdad, a US military transport plane was shot at by insurgents using a surface-to-air missile as it landed in Baghdad, and in western Iraq the pro-American mayor of Hadithah was gunned down. This means that 33 US troops have been killed by Iraqis in the 10 weeks since Mr Bush landed on an aircraft carrier to proclaim an end to the "Battle of Iraq". Yesterday's incident brought to 147 the number of troops killed in combat in this war, equalling the total killed in combat in the 1991 Gulf War.

What was it in aid of, Americans increasingly wonder, asking themselves the question John Kerry, a leading Democratic candidate posed in public: "Are we safer today than we were on September 11?" For many the answer is, no.

Other Democratic candidates are piling in - not only Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who opposed the war from the outset, but even strong advocates of it, such as Senator Joe Lieberman and Richard Gephardt, the former House majority leader.

They, and some Republicans, feel they were duped when the President sought congressional backing for war in October, on the basis of what now looks a grossly exaggerated case. Suddenly Mr Bush's credibility, so important for a self-styled "straight shooter", is under challenge. And suddenly, the White House no longer seems out of reach to Democrats in 2004.

To his discomfort, Mr Bush is learning that there is more to international affairs than brute force. Daily it grows clearer that if overstretched US troops are to get serious help in Iraq, Washington will have to cede more authority to the United Nations. Mr Bush is not a man who readily admits he was wrong. But, with no WMD and, manifestly, no threat from Saddam, reality is ever harder to avoid. As Groucho Marx asked: "Who are you going to believe - me, or your own two eyes?"

<  Buck Passes to 'Wolfowitz Committee' on SOTU Lie *wow* | 1996: "Shadow Agency" planned to destroy Saddam, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iran  >