Wash Post: CIA Warned British about False report in Sept. 2002

[jackstraw45]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40684-2003Jul10.html?nav=hptop_tb

CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim
Advice on Alleged Uranium Buy Was Refused
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 11, 2003; Page A01

The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday. (cut)

_____________________________________________________

Okay, let me get this straight.

CIA warns British not to use information but is ignored in September 2002.

CIA warns administration not to use information, is rebuffed and eventually backs down before SOTU.

Bush lies to the nation.

7 days later, Powell decides information isn't suitable to be delivered to the UN.

Reminds me of the administration's claims about 9/11:

August 2001: CIA warns of imminent threat involving hijackings - Bush ignores warning while on month long vacation

9/11 occurs.

Rice claims no one could have known....

BULLCRAP!

[jackstraw45]

1. kick

:kick:

[Room101]

2. Kick

.

[Sophree]

3. And yet

It's the CIA's fault, according to Condi, for it being the the SOTU.

So the CIA told the Brits not to use the bogus info. in an intelligence paper, but didn't tell the Pretzeldent, Condi not to use it in the SOTU?

Yeah right.

[jackstraw45]

4. This article has been overshadowed

by the deflection today by Condi & the rest of the Axis of Evil.

There hasn't been this much finger pointing since Bush was ordering drinks in a bar.

[Robb]

5. Drip, drip, drip,

drip, drip, -- FOOOOSSHH!! :)

[chromotone]

6. I may be slow on the uptake...

But let me see if I understand this...

The CIA warned the British about the fraudulent Niger documents in September 2002; and this is the same information that the White House claims the CIA "signed off on" for the SOTU address on 23 January 2003?

Why would the CIA try to dissuade the British from using this information but allow Bush to do so for the SOTU address?

Doesn't make sense.

(Does the CIA work directly with the British? Or would this kind of information have to go through another office?)

[jackstraw45]

7. Bingo

It doesn't make sense.

Just as the fact that the CIA warned the administration that a 9/11 type event was going to happen. Bush went on a month long vacation in Texas and John Ashcroft stopped flying commercial jets.

The CIA warned the British the Niger info was bogus and was rebuffed.

They probably DID warn the White House the info was bogus before the SOTU but were also rebuffed. Reluctantly signing off on a speech doesn't mean they didn't raise objections and were overruled.

[htuttle]

8. Yesterday's news was more enlightening on this item

According to CBS, ABC, and any other news bureau that's been paying attention, the CIA's 'signing off' went like this:

1) CIA says, "We can't back up the story about the Uranium...we think it's false."
2) Bush admin says, "We'll change it to say, 'British intelligence has discovered...' since that's technically correct. We can pin it on the British if we get caught."
3) CIA says, "Well, I suppose that's technically correct."

This story led on ABC Evening news last night, unless I'd actually fallen asleep during the newscast and dreamed I saw that.

That's a far cry from saying that they signed off on the information. They signed off on a what would be considered a lie anywhere but the United States under Bush.