Text of CIA Director Tenet's Statement

[janx]

Text of statement Friday night issued by CIA Director George Tenet:

__

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the president's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.

For perspective, a little history is in order.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

In the fall of 2002, my deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion, but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

In September and October 2002 before Senate committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the intelligence community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's key judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric-ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure 'uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

An unclassified CIA white paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003.

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/6284895.htm

[janx]

1. Read the last paragraph carefully.

Everyone knew what was going on, especially Candi.

[janx]

2. Also, while we can note that the CIA did not take the language

out--there is absolutely NO MENTION of who it was to put it IN.

[janx]

3. One thing that has NOT been addressed regarding this speech:

WHO WROTE IT?

[Rose Siding]

4. WAIT a minute!

Is he saying they didn't know at that point (in the last pp) that the US intel, the papers researched by Wilson a whole year earlier, were fakes? That makes no sense. Isn't that contradicted somewhere?

[janx]

5. Well he refers to Wilson earlier in the statement,

so you have a good point. It would contradict what he said just a few paragraphs above. But as I pointed out in another thread, it looks as if Tenet may have agreed to include certain points in his statement, but that he worded it in such a way that people with fair to good critical faculties can see it for what it is. On one hand, he says, in effect, that he and only he can take the blame, but on the other hand, he gives a critical reader a lot more information.

I think that's why it took so long for him to surface today. This statement is very, very carefully worded.--------------------

[juajen]

6. Carefully worded indeed!

Put this whole situation in the washing machine and turn on the spin cycle. I hope this does not fly and that everything this administration did leading up to the war will be investigated to ferret out the snakes and the snakecharmers. Of course, * knew what he was doing and probably picked out a fallguy in advance. Disgusting!

[janx]

8. Yes, but I think that Tenet spent a lot of time wording this

for a very good reason. I wondered, in the midst of this fracas, where he was all day. It turns out that both today and yesterday he was wrestling with this mess. So I think he agreed to say some things, but his statement is heavily laced with legal and critical points. Wait and see.

[otohara]

13. No Doubt His Attorney Was

sitting right next to him as they conjoured this up.

[janx]

21. He probably had

a whole team of them. It took him all day.

[goforit]

10. This statement , a clincher!....They will be tripping over their own spin!

This statement seems like it was written by a drunk!!!

Tooo many loop holes!!!

Slice and dice it DUrs!!!

[lkinsale]

11. Wilson and papers

Wilson said in his opinion piece that he never saw the forged papers. His report was based on his assessments in Niger. So they are two different things. Tenet is claiming that they had heard Wilson's assessment so they were suspicious of the documents, but didn't actually find out they were forgeries until after the SOTU. (And as I recall, it was the UN who told them the documents were forged after they were offered as evidence.)

[janx]

12. All the more reason that Tenet was likely pressured to make

certain specific statements, while loading his statement with a lot of other stuff.

[DUreader]

16. I recall the US gave the papers to IAEA after much delay

They were immediately pronounced fakes.

I think the word used was 'amateur' forgeries and Baradei(sp?)

couldn't believe that anyone had taken them seriously.

The name was an official years out of office and the 'stamp'

was also long out of use.

[Fovea]

7. The existence of the NIE 90 p classified document

and its contents make me devoutly wish that we still had a FOIA.

This clever little statement has already proven via Wolf Blitzer's poll to have little effect. The entire bag of crap has spattered on the faces of the Bush adminstration. His foot stomping, red-faced whineing about Saddam wanting to kill his dad, his sending Powell to lie to the U.N., and his really maladroit manipulation of Tony Blair was, in fact, noticed by the American people... Those millions who marched, phoned, wrote, or blogged their disgust with Bush's dirty little war are now howling mad.

This scandal is going to hit at mach 2, because 95% of the American People already know that Bush was 90% full of shit about the war, and will be horribly displeased when the find out that the other 10% was not just shit, but a con job on our only real ally left after Afghanistan, Britain.

I believe that it is already falling in on Bush, around his panicked simian head. I figure the order to fall to be, Tenent, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, then impeachment of the Chimpster and Cheney.

[janx]

9. Everything that is in this statement, and everything cited,

is there for a purpose. I could read it twenty times and not understand what the specific purpose is, but I can definitely see that there are legal and critical reasons for its existence.

This is a statement that is not going to go away. It purports to do one thing, but it does another.

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Factual schmactual: this PROVES IT WAS A LIE; please read

In short: gee, Mom, all we really said was that there was this British document that said he'd been looking for them. That's their claim that it was factual: that "there was this document that said that..."

The problem is that that's not how it was couched. They were OBVIOUSLY trying to sell this as corroborated fact, specifically devoid of specifics and on the subject of most people's biggest bugaboo: Nuclear Weapons. To say that they strictly said only that which was truth is to point out that they were deliberately deceiving for every implication that piggybacked along for the ride.

So the assertion had been in and out of the drafts--so they say--depending on the prevailing tradewinds of deniability. That very fact shows that it was a hot potato by nature, and thus something that should have unfurled red flags at each mention. There's a proportionate proof necessary to the gravity of the claim. If I say you suck, well, whatever. If I say you chainsaw nuns while sodomizing their kittycats, I need some proof.

If we're to believe that something in and out and in and out didn't attract the eye of the executive...well, go ahead and say it; the peasants'll love that one...

It is a deception, and an attempt to TERRORIZE people to gain their assent (Constitutionally mandated, for the legislators) to KILL MANY PEOPLE and risk lives, treasure and sacred honor, all of which have been squandered in abundance of late.

To excuse using something "on someone's word" (them Brits, they's way smart, ya know...) when the subject has constantly been under suspicion and failed every previous scrutinization is no excuse. It is fraud. It is the deepest deception of spirit and it even defies the letter of the law.

Here's why it was not factually true: they assert that all they did was claim that they had a source, but it was presented as A CORRECT SOURCE, while they are claiming no obligation to vouch for it. THE PRESENTATION OF THE SOURCE ITSELF IS AN ACT OF ATTESTING TO ITS VALIDITY. It's especially damning when so many other avenues toward this Holy Grail had come to naught. Thus, this is not factually true; to have been factually true (the whole truth) would have necessitated some form of qualification to the claim. Not only was there none, but it was presented as gospel. THUS, IT WAS NOT FACTUALLY TRUE.

[janx]

18. Of course it wasn't, and the administration's assertion that it was

is in itself a lie. This pretzel rhetoric and sham logic is really vulgar--and it reeks of Rumsfeld.

But the text of the statement, itself, is interesting because the last paragraph tells me that the CIA was trying to get that line out of it, but the "National Security" people wanted it in. What the National Security Council does these days, besides PR for Chimpy, is a mystery anyway, now that we have an office of Homeland Security.

Who wrote the speech? Who wanted that line in there? No one has addressed the question.

[gratuitous]

15. Refresh my memory . . .

Wasn't one of the Niger documents on the stationery of a purported minister who hadn't been in the position since the 1980s? And we, the American public, are supposed to believe that nobody in CIA was in a position to state, "You know, so-and-so hasn't been the minister of whatever in Niger for over a decade. This document couldn't possibly be authentic." It's sort of like finding a coin dated 44 B.C.

But, the importance of this mea culpa will be clear when Lil George gets back from Africaland: Will he be furious? Will he demand Tenet's resignation? Or will it be a simple slap on the back, everybody makes mistakes Tenet, no big deal, there's your explanation, now can we go back to talking about how great I am? If Lil George tries to fob this off as the last word on the matter, we need to raise holy hell.

[study_war_no_more]

17. Tenet takes a dive in the fifth round but

remember the real deal is LIHOP which will come out in the 9/11 report this is where we really have to push. Show and tell kiddies will not involve a goat story but a president who betrayed his people in a horrible way. This will raise the ire for a good old fashioned neocon witch hunt.

[janx]

19. That's exactly what Chimpy has done!

See this thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=9975&mesg_id=9975&page=

He considers the matter "closed." !!

[stlsaxman]

20. "I'll take the fall for this if it will divert attention from my

dealing with Attah prior to September 11, 2001"...

Who wouldn't rather be blamed for falsefying grounds for an attack on an
"evil dictator", killing thousands of innocent civilians abroad, than being
caught setting up a "Pearl Harbor" which involves the death of 3,000 Americans?

This way, Tenet need only spend six years in a country club for his acts.
Beats being hung for treason, don't it?


(DISCLAIMER: This in NO WAY accuses anyone of anything. It is merely
speculation on the part of the poster and meant for entertainment purposes
only.)