WP: Bushists claim CIA cleared info for SOTU it told Brits not to use

[BurtWorm]

I find that hard to believe. Sounds like Bushist ass-covering to me. Walter Pincus will be online today to answer questions about it.


http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_nation_pincus071103.htm

Iraq and Intelligence
With Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 11, 2003; 3:30 p.m ET


President Bush and his national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said Friday the CIA cleared the president's State of the Union speech which included an erroneous allegation that Iraq sought nuclear material from Niger. And in today's Washington Post, Walter Pincus reports that the CIA tried unsuccesfully to disuade British intelligence from including the allegation in an official intelligence report.

Pincus, a Post national reporter covering the CIA and intelligence, will be online Friday, July 11, at 3:30 p.m. ET to discuss is story and the debate over U.S. intelligence on Iraq. How reliable is the intelligence used to bolster the administration's case for war in Iraq? What evidence is there to support the accusation that Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction? How did an inaccurate account make it's way into the president's speech and did he overstate the case against Iraq?

Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.

[htuttle]

1. Didn't we hear the real story yesterday?

Sure, this is technically correct.

But yesterday, there were administration officials stating that the CIA objected until Bush changed the line to 'British intelligence has received information...', so they could 'pin it on the British' if they got caught (their words). According to yesterday's accounts, the CIA then said it was OK (or at least 'technically correct').

So, am I misunderstanding this, or is the Bush admin's argument remarkably weak? This is all they got?

[9215]

2. Prejudiced question:

How did an inaccurate account make it's way into the president's speech and did he overstate the case against Iraq?


This pre-supposes that the inaccurate account made it into Bush's speech and does not consider the possibility that Bush knew all along what the CIA knew.

Question should read: "Did an inaccurate account make it's way into the president's speech or is he using that excuse as a way to weasel out of his false statements?"