Rice and Gonzales Lie to Congress About Lying
Back during 2002 and early 2003 it was near-universally understood that there was conflict between the top leadership of the Bush administration and the bulk of the CIA over Iraq and Iraq-related intelligence. After all, before the push for war began the CIA issued a January 2002 tour de horizon of the global proliferation situation and offered a pretty anodyne assessment of the Iraqi nuclear threat: “Iraq has probably continued at least low-level theoretical R&D associated with its nuclear program.” Since back during this period the bulk of Washington was backing the war, the common assumption was that the CIA was deliberately understating the threat thanks to the CIA’s legendary pacifism.
But then of course it turned out that the CIA had actually been somewhat overstating Iraq’s WMD capabilities and the administration has been wildly overstating the intelligence plus doing some exaggerating, distorting, etc. on the side. At which point suddenly poor Bush became the victim of a CIA and it was all their fault. The story never made much sense, but unfortunately enough powerful people had agreed with Bush about invading Iraq that few really wanted to peer too deeply into this. But here comes a new memo from Henry Waxman and the House Government Oversight Committee kicking another brick out of the wall.
This one concerns the bogus Niger “yellowcake” claims. On behalf of Condoleezza Rice, several years back Alberto Gonzales assured congress that the mistaken claims in Bush speeches had been cleared with the CIA, and the CIA signed off. Not so — Matt Corley guides you through the new information:
When White House speechwriters tried to put the uranium claim into Bush’s Sept. 12, 2002 speech to UN, the CIA rejected it because it was “not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech”:
During an interview with the Committee, John Gibson, who served as Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council (NSC), stated that he tried to insert the uranium claim into this speech at the request of Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC. According to Mr. Gibson, the CIA rejected the uranium claim because it was “not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech.” Mr. Gibson stated that the CIA “didn’t give that blessing,” the “CIA was not willing to clear that language,” and “[a]t the end of the day, they did not clear it.”
When National Security Council staff refused to take the uranium claim out of Bush’s Sept. 26, 2002 speech, Jami Miscik, the Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, called Rice personally to request it be removed:
According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA’s reasons for rejecting the uranium claim “had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts” before the call, and Dr. Rice was “getting on the phone call with that information.” Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was “recommending that it be taken out.” She also said “[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call” because “we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it.”
But, you know, democracy whiskey sexy.
33 Responses to “Rice and Gonzales Lie to Congress About Lying”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 18th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
What exactly has Mr. Waxman and his House Oversight committee been doing for the last two years?
Back in 2004 I predicted the second term of the Bush Administration would be consumed by Congressional inquiries into the scandals of the first term, and when the Democrats won a majority in 2006, I thought that would happen for sure. But, then, practically nothing …
Was there some sort of agreement that Waxman would hold off until after the election for some tactical political reason?
December 18th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Is it still irrelevant to point out that despite being flat out, laughably utterly ridiculous right wing propaganda (and no, I don’t care how wretchedly Hitchens was screaming about uncovering what had been published repeatedly in French newspapers), that if Iraq had acquired yellowcake uranium it would represent no threat to U.S. security nor to the prospects of an Iraqi nuclear program whatsoever — mainly because Iraq already possessed thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of low grade / yellowcake uranium?
And that what an aspiring — mythical or real — Iraqi nuclear weapons program needed was not more sh*tty uranium, but to conquer the small barrier that “Nothing indicated that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous enrichment processes”?
Yeah, it’s probably not worth mentioning. Better to debate whether or not President Dumbass really really honest and for true believed in some documents signed by some guy who wasn’t the actual Niger leader.
The argument is duplicitous in its entirety. None of the eager advocates of the war cared whether or not Saddam was developing any weapons program, nor whether or not there were unresolved issues from the previous war, nor whether his leadership threatened stability in the region, nor whether somehow it had something to do with terrorism or not, nor whether blowing up the country would make Iraqi lives better.
It was all a giant emotional play to give the war’s backers the war they wanted. And they got it, and they kept it, and they even stomped down any effort to change its continuation in 2007 by launching the 2nd biggest propaganda campaign of the Bush Jr. wartime, that of TEH SURGE (YOU WILL ADMIT IT IS WORKING).
December 19th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I think that the Democrats have not been sufficiently taken to task on the issue of Iraq (and on other recent fiascoes) for being too loyal an opposition during the Bush Presidency. They have ceded much of the power to the President and have been willing to just throw up their hands in sign of utter powerlessness.
Contrast their behavior with the Republicans’. Even after losing so badly last November, the Senate Republicans have managed to scuttle the Auto bailout deal. I do not remember the Dems having pulled off something like this.
When the Dems are in a minority, they just use their minority status as an excuse for not standing up for progressive issues. When they are in a majority they again plead that they do not have any power since the big bad Republicans do not let them have their way. Whatever the situation, they do not ever seem to be able to do the right thing.
December 19th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Was there some sort of agreement that Waxman would hold off until after the election for some tactical political reason?
Hold off from what? They issue subpoenas, they don’t show up. They demand documents, they’re either withheld or got eaten by the server. They expose executive branch malfeasance, the culprits don’t resign. The tacit expectation that miscreants would say “fair cop” and leave went out of the window.
If you had been paying attention, Popeye, you’d know all this.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Shorter Steve Sailer: Stop me before I kill again! Whoops, too late, and it’s your fault. I told you to stop me.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Dear Matthew Yglesias:
Will you please go back to your old blog and make the link there a hyperlink instead of plain text so I can click it when Google sends me there instead of here? And so that Google will mabye follow it and put this site in their results instead?
December 19th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Steve: Guess what? Sibel Edmonds would agree with you.
Waxman promised her that her case would be his top priority once the Democrats won in 2006.
Now he doesn’t take her calls.
He’s just another gutless asshole with a dossier in the hands of the FBI like the rest of the Democrats who are afraid they’ll all go to jail if they actually pull the rug out from even one of the crooks in this government.
And in the Edmonds case, we’re talking actual TREASON here. Major TREASON. Selling nuclear secrets to the enemy. Drug smuggling. Weapons smuggling. Nuclear components smuggling. Smuggling people suspected of connections with 9/11 out of the country TREASON.
But we’re also talking Turkey and Israel here. So that’s the end of that.
December 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Can’t we get these slimy fools out of here before January 20? Why hasn’t Obama accepted the liberal mandate and immediately pushed for impeachment and war criminal proceedings against one and all in the Cheney/Bush Administration?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
December 19th, 2008 at 8:09 am
As I’ve mentioned before, the “yellowcake” story was bogus because, as events during the invasion showed — and as we knew all along — Iraq already had quite a store of yellowcake. Iraq had for many years a civilian nuclear program. We shut it down following the First Gulf War but did not remove ANYTHING pertaining to it. Not the uranium. Not the reactors. Not the waste. Bush and Cheney sneering about it and wringing their hands over it was like collaring someone on the street outside a Chase Bank and insinuating, “You know, I bet they’ve got some money in there.” (Current events somewhat dimming the aptness of the comparison, I know.)
December 19th, 2008 at 8:39 am
I thought the Director – who overrules the deputy director – said it was a slam dunk. That’s Tenet.
Sec. of Defense Gates said on Wednesday on Charlie Rose that Saddam had successfully bluffed on the issue (which is why he didn’t come clean) and that most countries believed he had WMD (hence the UN resolutions) but many countries also thought he was “in his box” and removing him was not worth it. I thought the CIA was in this camp despite Tenet’s willingness to go along with his boss after 911.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9835
December 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
It’s clear from the context of other accounts as well as Tenet’s painstaking defense that what he was a slam dunk was not the existence of Iraq’s WMDs, but making the case for their existence.
At least Tenet thinks that’s a defense. I happen to think it makes him look worse: the DCI’s job is to present the best information he can, not to be an administration team player judging how it will go don with the rubes. That he didn’t and doesn’t realize that is at least as scary as the conventional misreading.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Argh: “…that what he SAID was a slam dunk was not the existence…”
December 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
How is this a ‘new memo’? Didn’t we know all this stuff years ago, or does Waxman’s memo just make it all ‘official’?
December 19th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I see that working for a 501(c)4 doesn’t necessarily forbid sideways MTX references, Matt.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:08 am
viagra
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Love your site, great info on the subject as well…. Tks
March 17th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Incredible site!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:19 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:58 am
I want to say – thank you for this! viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected when I stumpled upon a link on SU telling that the info here is awesome. Thanks.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
FANTASTIC!