Have you had enough yet?...

Bush Adviser Apologizes Over Iraq Claim

Bush Adviser Apologizes Over Iraq Claim

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Stephen Hadley, President Bush's deputy national security adviser, on Tuesday became the second administration official to apologize for allowing a tainted intelligence report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions into Bush's State of the Union address.


Hadley, in a rare on-the-record session with reporters, said that he had received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from agency Director George Tenet last October raising objections to an allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium ore from Africa to use in building nuclear weapons.


As a result, Hadley said the offending passage was excised from a speech on Iraq the president gave in Cincinnati last Oct. 7. But Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together.


"The high standards the president set were not met," Hadley said. He said he apologized to the president on Monday.


Tenet previously issued a statement saying that he should have raised objections to the Iraq-Africa-uranium sentence when the CIA reviewed an advance copy of the president's State of the Union message.


Hadley is the top aide to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.


The controversial passage citing a British intelligence report "should have been taken out of the State of the Union," Hadley said. He said he was taking responsibility on behalf of the White House staff just as Tenet had for the CIA.


"There were a number of people who could have raised a hand" to have the passage removed from the draft of Bush's Jan. 28 address, Hadley said. "And no one raised a hand."


"The process failed," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett.


Still, Bartlett said that Bush, while perturbed by the developments, "has full confidence in his national security adviser, his deputy national security adviser and the director of central intelligence."


Hadley's statement came as the administration went into full damage-control mode, reaching out to its Republican allies in Congress in an effort to counter criticism of Bush's Iraq policy and his use of discredited intelligence to advance the case for toppling Saddam Hussein.


With Bush's job approval ratings slipping and U.S. casualties in Iraq climbing, the White House sought to move the debate away from the flap over Bush's 16-word assertion that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa.


The White House presented Hadley's apology on a day when public attention on Iraq was focused on the killing of Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai.


Hadley expressed his regret to Bush in a private session on Monday, offering what amounted to his resignation. Bush did not accept it, said aides speaking on condition of anonymity.


Meanwhile, Democrats used the development to step up their criticism of the president. "First they blamed the Brits. Then CIA Director George Tenet walked the plank. Now the White House is dragging (Hadley) forward to take the fall for the president's bogus claim," said Tony Welch, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.


Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential hopeful, asserted in a statement that "I call on all who misled the president to resign immediately. ... The story line continues to change from day to day on this matter."


According to Hadley's account, an unsigned CIA memo was sent to him and to presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson in an Oct. 5 memorandum advising that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from the west African country of Niger.


"These reservations were confirmed by the CIA" in a second memo on Oct. 6, a day before Bush's Cincinnati speech, Hadley said.


He said that Tenet delivered similar reservations in a phone call around the same time and asked him to delete the phrase from the speech � which was done.

Hadley said the memos were lengthy and included other recommendations, and he noted that he has frequent phone conversations with Tenet. "As I sit here, I do not remember" details of the CIA reservations, Hadley said.

Still, he said, "I should have recalled (the issue) at the time of the State of the Union address. ... If I had done so, it would have avoided the entire current controversy."

The first CIA memo was discovered over the weekend by Gerson, the White House speechwriter.

Gerson did not attend the session with reporters. But, Bartlett said, "he had no recollection" of the controversy.

Separately the administration is pressing its GOP allies in Congress to do more to emphasize some of the upside to deposing Saddam.

Other aggressive efforts are expected by the administration in the days ahead to try to regain control of the message, including a possible speech on the issue by Vice President Dick Cheney, administration and congressional GOP aides said.

Bush himself has said the uranium phrase had been cleared by intelligence agencies. The president has sidestepped questions on whether he felt personally responsible for the tainted information.

The White House last week began an offensive to try to stem the criticism, including putting out newly declassified portions of an October 2002 intelligence report that reflected widespread concern that Iraq was in pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Appologies, denials or dismissals. That's about all you hear from the current administration. Can any of you honestly tell me you believe Mr. Hadley, Rice, Powell, Bush or any of them for that matter?

I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if they weren't constantly contradicting themselves.

We are there to liberate Iraq, yet we do it with cruise missles and bombs, suspend the Iraqi press, install a hard-right christian network and appoint a 3 body council to govern the newly liberated Iraqi? How obviously full of sh*t can you get before your credibility is questioned?

I still have yet to find some good that the current administration has done, besides assist corporate criminals and the very rich or the pompous, religious zealot.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

Look, I agree that the post-invasion was not handled very well. Something about creating a state of anarchy, resulting in people storing milk in containers that used to contain radioactive waste, massive looting, etc. Do you honestly believe that Iraq was better under the Hussein regime where anyone even suspected of being unloyal was executed. Geez, the regime is resposible for the murder of more Muslims than any other regime in history.

Freddie you're trying to talk sense to people who would give hell to FDR for trying to beat up the Nazis.

"Oh don't bother the Nazis, they are a sovereign nation, we can't do anything to them...this is against the rules of the world"...bah...

It doesn't matter how many heads Saddam stuck on fence posts, or rapes his sons committed...they'll still defend him.

I get that impression, FM. I have broad shoulders. I am used to posting on boards based in Hong Kong. This is a delight. People actually agree with me sometimes here.

regards
seekerof

I read over my post several times, and didn't find anything defending Saddam, I don't know where you got that from, FM. (I am not surprised at your comment given my experience with you FM.) Though, I don't think Saddam was Hitler-caliber material, let's not give him that much credit.

Point being, is that the current administration is nothing but a funny-bag of liars that further their own political agenda (and pocket books) for nothing as noble as the people...

Thorn, that is is their only refuge...irrelevancy. Hitler? Togo? What do these things have to do a current gross violations of international law? Nothing. But, they use it b/c it sounds good.

"We stopped Hitler!"
"We stopped Togo!"
"We ended Communism!"

Does that have ANYTHING to do with the crimes this admin has committed? Nope.


But, it sounds good.

Colonel, the court of last resort in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. Just what law school did you go to? It would be a Constitutional violation to submit America to some bogus international court. You know that.

Originally posted by Freddie
Colonel, the court of last resort in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. Just what law school did you go to? It would be a Constitutional violation to submit America to some bogus international court. You know that.

International law, treaties, and the like are on par with federal law. What law school did YOU go to.

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by Freddie
Colonel, the court of last resort in America is the U.S. Supreme Court. Just what law school did you go to? It would be a Constitutional violation to submit America to some bogus international court. You know that.

International law, treaties, and the like are on par with federal law. What law school did YOU go to.

Colonel....
What happened to "innocent till proven guilty?"......
You do realize calling someone a "liar", with out resounding evidence...and upheld by a court of law, is "slander"(ie: defamation (sp) of character)........



regards
seekerof

Sure treaties are on par with federal law. However, the U.S. must be a part of the treaty for it to have power (of course). What international tribunal did America sign up for???

I told you this before. I went to Loyola University-Chicago School of Law.

Originally posted by Freddie
Sure treaties are on par with federal law. However, the U.S. must be a part of the treaty for it to have power (of course). What international tribunal did America sign up for???

I told you this before. I went to Loyola University-Chicago School of Law.

The US never signed up to an internatoinal tribunal but we are members of international institutions...like the UN, maybe, who happen to draft international law from time to time?

Lies have already been proved.

The Bush administration is already trying to retract some of them.

More damage control.

More post-hoc justification of the lies and the clear breaches of international law. The war in Iraq was not about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, and the US is not a law unto itself in the international arena.

This whole thing is heating up very quickly now.

I don't think even a full deck of Iraqi most wanted cards will save the administration, really. I shudder to think what might happen if there have been any 'technical errors' in eliminating any of them.

BTW, you can get a deck of "Least Wanted" American cards from

www.tvnewslies.org...

George W Bush as the Joker is a classic.

I don't think Colonel has any problems with slander.

What do you think, Freddie?

Oh, he's definitely going down. He came into this admin acting like an a$$hole and now he's gonna leave lookin like an a$$hole.

Ya know, to me, G Dubya looking for the secret Iraqi WMD's is like O.J. looking for the "real killers."

Wake up. W. is not going down. Look forward to another 4 years of his "reign." Like it or not, you are in the political minority of America.

Don't get me wrong, it is possible I am in the minority. Personally, I don't really care, I just hope it keeps getting worse 'til the whole thing comes crashing down...

I don't believe any current US opinion poll that finds George W Bush has performed his presidential duties with competency, or that says the majority of voters would vote for this administration at the 2004 election (if required).

Read between the lines.

Unless the Dems can't come up with a viable candidate, I don't see how Bush could get re-elected. Osama and Saddam are still on the run, the economy is still low, the country has a record deficit and high unemployment. Plus as more people become informed the admin's support of the Patriot Act could become a negative as well, and if the "Road Map" steers off course he's screwed. As bad as the Dems are looking for the next election 2004 could be the year of the 3rd Party candidate.