Thinking about my previous posting, I realized that there is something else — actually, many other things, but one in particular right now — which bothers me about this whole Lies-In-The-President’s-Speech situation: George W. Bush is taking no personal responsibility for the words which came out of his mouth.
Everyone around him is extemporizing furiously to explain how those 16 words regarding bogus uranium purchases got into the State of the Union Address. “It was the CIA’s fault.” “It was the fault of the Brits.” “The evidence of the falsity had not yet been discovered.” Everyone blaming, everyone pointing fingers.
Everyone, that is, except the person who spoke the words. He takes no responsibility for his statements.
What kind of person feels no ownership of the words coming out of his mouth? An actor? No, all the actors I know connect with their lines, feeling them, believing the words so that they can inhabit another soul. A liar, then? No, a liar creates the words, crafting them carefully to convince others of their veracity, taking pride when he succeeds. A salesman? No, the salesman who doesn’t believe in his product and the statements he makes to sell that product won’t be successful, and won’t be selling for very long.
How about a puppet? Only a puppet has no connection with the words he speaks. Only a puppet voices words that are put into his mouth without routing through its brain. Only a puppet like George W. Bush would demonstrate no anger at the people who made him look like a lying fool in front of the entire world.
So, George W. Bush is, as I have always believed, merely a puppet. But, who, exactly, is the puppeteer?
Or does he?
As reported in the NY Times today [reg req'd], CIA Director George Tenet “accepted responsibility yesterday for letting President Bush use information that turned out to be unsubstantiated in his State of the Union address, accusing Iraq of trying to acquire uranium from Africa to make nuclear weapons.”
But the information didn’t “turn out to be unsubstantiated” as the Times reports: it was long known to be unsubstantiated. In the complete text of Tenet’s statement, posted on the CIA’s website, he presents the full history of the Niger “yellowcake” claim, going back as far as the fall of 2001. It seems, from Tenet’s history lesson, that this information has been dubious from the start: “[B]ecause we had questions about some of the reporting… the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State’s United Nations presentation in early 2003.”
It was considered dubious enough to keep it out of speeches, testimony and the UN presentation, so how did it get into the State of the Union address? Tenet explains the process:
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.
So, “factually”, it was true. (And, in the same way, it is factually true that several major circulation US periodicals have reported they have proof that Elvis is still alive.) But, I don’t think Tenet is letting the whole blame fall on his shoulders. As John, a commenter on the Daily Kos site says, :
[Tenet] …points out (1) the language was put into the President’s speech by the NSC; (2) CIA officials raised concerns about the language with the NSC; (3) the NSC modified the sentence by inserting the caveat that it was British intelligence that said the Iraqis were trying to get the uranium; so (4) it was only on that factual basis, i.e., that the British said that it was true, that the CIA cleared the speech.
So, it was the National Security Council staff who suggested the uranium claim and then edited the piece to overcome CIA’s objections in order to make the statement “factually” correct. This, even though the NSC — and, in particular, Dr. Rice, whose formal title is “Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” — were almost certainly privy to the long and dubious history of the African claims.
Tenet: Well, yes, Ms. Rice, technically the statement is true: the British did report that.
Rice: Great! This will definitely help make the case to the public.
Tenet: But, Condi, you know it’s not good info.
Rice: Your objections are noted, George. Still, it’s my duty to advise the President.
Clinton-appointee Tenet may be out the door, but if there’s any justice in this administration, it probably won’t be long before Dr. Rice decides to “spend more time with her family.”
