Center of Intelligence? Bah, we've only got 45 minutes! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KillerYoda · 07-20-2003, 04:03 AM

The phones in Washington don't work nowadays it seems:
White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes
I guess if they didn't see a passenger jet coming at them, there's really no need to ask them questions anymore, right?

seretogis · 07-20-2003, 08:37 AM

Please copy/paste the article for those of us who don't want to give our personal information to newspapers.

The_Dude · 07-20-2003, 08:40 AM

actually, they just asked for year of birth, zip code.

wasnt as bad as i expected.

Quote:

White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes
Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes

The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.

The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."

The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.

The White House embraced the claim, from a British dossier on Iraq, at the same time it began to promote the dossier's disputed claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.

Bush administration officials last week said the CIA was not consulted about the claim. A senior White House official did not dispute that account, saying presidential remarks such as radio addresses are typically "circulated at the staff level" within the White House only.

Virtually all of the focus on whether Bush exaggerated intelligence about Iraq's weapons ambitions has been on the credibility of a claim he made in the Jan. 28 State of the Union address about efforts to buy uranium in Africa. But an examination of other presidential remarks, which received little if any scrutiny by intelligence agencies, indicates Bush made more broad accusations on other intelligence matters related to Iraq.

For example, the same Rose Garden speech and Sept. 28 radio address that mentioned the 45-minute accusation also included blunt assertions by Bush that "there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq." This claim was highly disputed among intelligence experts; a group called Ansar al-Islam in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who could have been in Iraq, were both believed to have al Qaeda contacts but were not themselves part of al Qaeda.

Bush was more qualified in his major Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati, mentioning al Qaeda members who got training and medical treatment from Iraq. The State of the Union address was also more hedged about whether al Qaeda members were in Iraq, saying "Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."

Bush did not mention Iraq in his radio address yesterday. Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), delivering the Democratic radio address, suggested that the dispute over the uranium claim in the State of the Union "is about whether administration officials made a conscious and very troubling decision to create a false impression about the gravity and imminence of the threat that Iraq posed to America." Levin said there is evidence the uranium claim "was just one of many questionable statements and exaggerations by the intelligence community and administration officials in the buildup to the war."

The 45-minute accusation is particularly noteworthy because of the furor it has caused in Britain, where the charge originated. A parliamentary inquiry determined earlier this month that the claim "did not warrant the prominence given to it in the dossier, because it was based on intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The inquiry also concluded that "allegations of politically inspired meddling cannot credibly be established."

As it turns out, the 45-minute charge was not true; though forbidden weapons may yet be found in Iraq, an adviser to the Bush administration on arms issues said last week that such weapons were not ready to be used on short notice.

The 45-minute allegation did not appear in the major speeches Bush made about Iraq in Cincinnati in October or in his State of the Union address, both of which were made after consultation with the CIA. But the White House considered the 45-minute claim significant and drew attention to it the day the British dossier was released. Asked if there was a "smoking gun" in the British report, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Sept. 24 highlighted that charge and the charge that Iraq sought uranium in Africa.

"I think there was new information in there, particularly about the 45-minute threshold by which Saddam Hussein has got his biological and chemical weapons triggered to be launched," Fleischer said. "There was new information in there about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain uranium from African nations. That was new information."

The White House use of the 45-minute charge is another indication of its determination to build a case against Hussein even without the participation of U.S. intelligence services. The controversy over the administration's use of intelligence has largely focused on claims made about the Iraqi nuclear program, particularly attempts to buy uranium in Africa. But the accusation that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack on a moment's notice was significant because it added urgency to the administration's argument that Hussein had to be dealt with quickly.

Using the single-source British accusation appears to have violated the administration's own standard. In a briefing for reporters on Friday, a senior administration official, discussing the decision to remove from the Cincinnati speech an allegation that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, said CIA Director George J. Tenet told the White House that "for a presidential speech, the standard ought to be higher than just relying upon one source. Oftentimes, a lot of these things that are embodied in this document are based on multiple sources. And in this case, that was a single source being cited, and he felt that that was not appropriate."

The British parliamentary inquiry reported this month that the claim came from one source, and "it appears that no evidence was found which corroborated the information supplied by the source, although it was consistent with a pattern of evidence of Iraq's military capability over time. Neither are we aware that there was any corroborating evidence from allies through the intelligence-sharing machinery. It is also significant that the US did not refer to the claim publicly." The report said the investigators "have not seen a satisfactory answer" to why the government gave the claim such visibility.

looks to me like his whole state of the union message is unraveling.

rodgerd · 07-20-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
I guess if they didn't see a passenger jet coming at them, there's really no need to ask them questions anymore, right?

It's fairly well documented that a number of the intelligence agencies, including the CIA, tried to get the administration to pay attention to the threat that bin Laden poses. The problem was that the administration didn't want to listen, dismissing briefings as nonsense because they came from Clinton appointees.

Partisan politics at its finest...

KillerYoda · 07-20-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Please copy/paste the article for those of us who don't want to give our personal information to newspapers.

That's weird, it never asked me for anything like that.

hiredgun · 07-20-2003, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Please copy/paste the article for those of us who don't want to give our personal information to newspapers.

It's not that hard to just enter a fake date of birth and zip code...

oldman2003 · 07-20-2003, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
That's weird, it never asked me for anything like that.

check for a cookie....and get ride of it!

Dilbert1234567 · 07-22-2003, 10:25 AM

45 min we can bearly hit moscow in 45

i think the official time for a missle to hit russia from the US is 22 min, but that is after launcher and the missle take 30 min to fuel for a total of 52 min

sadam can hit us faster then we can hit russia?

BULL SHIT

Zeld2.0 · 07-22-2003, 11:06 PM

20 mins flight or so from land based missiles in Russia is about right - 30 mins fuel as well sounds about right..

generlaly though missiles are kept fueled in case of the attack (during the cold war at least)

and nuclear missile subs were created as well to make it so there was no such thing as a stationary target so the retaliation could occur anywhere...

but thats irrelevant

07-20-2003, 04:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	Center of Intelligence? Bah, we've only got 45 minutes! The phones in Washington don't work nowadays it seems: White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes I guess if they didn't see a passenger jet coming at them, there's really no need to ask them questions anymore, right? __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

07-20-2003, 08:37 AM	#2 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	Please copy/paste the article for those of us who don't want to give our personal information to newspapers. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

07-22-2003, 10:25 AM	#8 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	45 min we can bearly hit moscow in 45 i think the official time for a missle to hit russia from the US is 22 min, but that is after launcher and the missle take 30 min to fuel for a total of 52 min sadam can hit us faster then we can hit russia? BULL SHIT __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

07-22-2003, 11:06 PM	#9 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	20 mins flight or so from land based missiles in Russia is about right - 30 mins fuel as well sounds about right.. generlaly though missiles are kept fueled in case of the attack (during the cold war at least) and nuclear missile subs were created as well to make it so there was no such thing as a stationary target so the retaliation could occur anywhere... but thats irrelevant