Dems Rip White House on Iraq Claim (after Tenet testifies)

[LauraK]

WASHINGTON - 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.

Senators spoke after CIA Director George Tenet made a 4 1/2-hour closed-door appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Tenet repeated his statement that he bears responsibility for allowing Bush to include his State of the Union speech a claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for a nuclear weapons program.

But 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.
<cut

More here

[Nambe]

1. Wasn't Graham on the Senate Intel Committee?

We Dems are so sure of ourselves in this hunt, it makes me think there must be a smoking gun in there!

[Maple]

2. I believe he was

and he said there was some tremendously explosive stuff involved, but that he couldn't release it, as it was classified.

He said it...very loudly...several times.

[demhoo]

8. Not just anything can be classified.

I went to the Defense Security Service website and looked up
Executive Order 12958 - Classified National Security Information
April 17, 1995. There are regulations concerning what can and can't be classified, and at what level (top secret, secret, or confidential), and by whom. Here are a couple of exerpts:

Sec. 1.2. Classification Standards.

a. Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

1. an original classification authority is classifying the information;

2. the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

3. the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.5 of this order; and

4. the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

b. If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

1. amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

2. create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.


Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories.

Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

a. military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

b. foreign government information;

c. intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

d. foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

e. scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

f. United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or

g. vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.

Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

a. In no case shall information be classified in order to:

1. conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

2. prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

3. restrain competition; or

4. prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.

It would be interesting to find out who classified this information and what their justification was.

[lkinsale]

6. Graham points to other manipulations today

"It is clear that beyond the false information Bush provided the nation in his State of the Union address, there were other cases where the administration manipulated intelligence by cherry-picking from intelligence reports, ignoring intelligence that contradicted their case for a war in Iraq. This includes the testimony in June of Christian Westermann, a State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons who claimed that he was pressed by the Bush administration to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters to conform to the political and policy desires of President Bush.

http://www.grahamforpresident.com/news/0307/030716-2.html

[Pikku]

13. As much of a leak as we could hope for

"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. "

It doesn't matter really who, it just matters that the WH wasn't a complete passive victim in this scenario.

Imagine for an instant that you're back in high school. Your evil English teacher has assigned you a paper on the topic "The nefarious agenda of author X." What the hell, you're just a student, you don't know from author X, you think.

You dutifully read all the books, you look up and cite whatever you can get your mittens on to prove your point. The truth is that all the information you can find indicates that author X is kind of a bumbling goofus. What to do?

You get your paper back, and you've gotten a D because your teacher thinks that you haven't proven your case enough. You've run out of sources, so what to do? Invent your own!

You get your buddy Bob to write a first-hand account of how awful author X is, and then you tell your teacher that you "can't disclose your sources." Now do you get an A?

[revcarol]

3. That Roberts is a real slug.

Proving his stupidity with every word out of his mouth.

[lanlady]

4. the names of the WH officials are "confidential"

WTF is this? The SOTU is a constitutionally mandated duty of the president to report to the People, and they're keeping it a secret?

The Dems have got to get to the American people NOW and denounce this behavior. We have a goddamn right to know!

[hang a left]

7. calm down now

these hearings are closed door. we are gonna find out. not alot of left to the imagination though. Let's start a pool.

[Nambe]

10. Woolfowitz's committee was outed today. I'm sure that's it.

I would sure like to see Rove implicated too.

[lkinsale]

5. An uplifting experience?

Tenet did not speak to reporters, except to describe his appearance as an "uplifting experience" as he left.


Now that's interesting.

[Rose Siding]

9. When the FBI says it "is not", does that mean "it is"?

Could they actually investigate the CIA?

snip>
The official said the FBI is not investigating the U.S. government, but is looking at a variety of foreign entities, from other governments to anti-Saddam groups that favored a U.S. invasion.

[umcwb]

11. Kick, n/t

[peterh]

12. my interpretation of Pat Roberts was that he was not a happy camper

and there was shitload that was said that one could have a love fest in between the lines.