Yesterday, we all heard, via Murray Waas's excellent
article in the National Journal and various diaries and postings on it
here,
here and
here and
elsewhere in the blogosphere, and even in the
media, that, contrary to what Bush and the White House have been claiming for years, he DID know, as far back as October 2002--well before his now infamous State of the Union Address with its "16 Words" let alone the start of the Iraq war--that there was NOT a consensus within his administration that Iraq had attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Niger or that the aluminum tubes that it had purchased were meant for use in refining uranium.
And furthermore, we now know that there was a deliberate--and till now successful--attempt to cover this up. The proof of this is in a one page memo that the then Deputy National Security Advisor, Stephen Hadley, had written as a distillation of the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), and that Bush had read this at the time, and whose existance we are only now finding out about. And, understandably, this revalation has set off a firestorm of discussion about what this means.
Well, over at the
Huffington Post, Representative
John Conyers (D-MI-14CD) has posted a
scathing accusation of Bush that all but accuses him of lying about this in the run-up to the war and of keeping this memo hidden and undisclosed, and demands that he come clean about what he actually knew prior to the war and release this memo.
Torquemadog wrote a good diary on this yesterday, John Conyers Calls On President Bush to Release The Smoking Gun "Hadley Memo" (Poll), but I think that this bears repeating given who John Conyers is and the valient and couragous--and often solitary--effort he's been leading to hold Bush and the administration accountable for its lies and crimes.
I am heartened that once again Representative Conyers has risen to the challenge of taking on Bush and his administration on this important issue, even though he continues to be one of the few Democrats willing to do this publically (along with John Murtha, Russ Feingold and a few others). And I certainly hope--although I do not expect--Bush to come clean on this matter.
I do have a few relatively minor quibbles with his letter to Bush, which I will explain at the end of this diary, but first I will quote the entirety of Conyers' post.
Here is the first part::
Release the Hadley Memo
Rep. John Conyers
March 30, 2006
The most infamous example of the Administration's manipulation of pre-war intelligence is the sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union Address, in which the President falsely claimed to the American people and the Congress that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Africa. Until now, the Administration's line of defense has been that the President did not know about dissenting viewpoints on this issue and, therefore, acted in good faith when he presented this claim in an unequivocal fashion.
In a moment reminiscent of the revelation that the President received a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" prior to the September 11 attacks, we now learn -- via fellow Huffington Poster Murray Waas of the National Journal -- that the President received a memo advising him that the notion that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons was anything but an unequivocal view within his own Administration. We also know that the Administration orchestrated an effort to cover up this fact before the 2004 elections.
According to National Journal, then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley summarized a National Intelligence Estimate for the President in October 2002. In that summary, Hadley specifically said that while many agencies believed the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
What did the President do just 3 months later? He stood before Congress, the American people, and the world and contradicted his own experts. During his January 2003 State of the Union Address, he claimed, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." He failed to mention that not all of our intelligence sources saw it that way.
We also learned from this report that Karl Rove reviewed these documents in advance of the 2004 elections and expressed concerns that Bush's reelection prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that the President had received this warning about the credibility of the Iraq uranium claims.
We now should turn to the White House and ask it to make public the summary the President received. The American people deserve to know what the President knew and when he knew it. For my part, I am writing the President today to ask him to do just that. I have no illusions that this arrogant Administration will be any more responsive to my requests than it has in the past. That is why this issue cries out for an aggressive and concerted effort by the press to get to the bottom of this. The President and his Press Secretary should be asked about this every single day until they come clean.
We have just passed the three-year anniversary of the invasion and no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons materials have been found in Iraq. In the meantime, the human costs of the war continue to mount. We deserve full, complete and candid answers.
And here is the letter that he wrote to Bush:
March 30, 2006
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write to ask that you publicly release an October 2002 memorandum that informed you that the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with assessments that Iraq was seeking to acquire nuclear weapons materials. The memorandum was submitted to you by then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.
Throughout the past several years, you have claimed frequently that Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire the materials necessary to build nuclear weapons. In fact, during your 2003 State of the Union Address, you stated, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Shortly after this speech, the United States invaded Iraq, but no nuclear weapons materials have been located.
According to the National Journal, you were aware prior to the 2003 State of the Union that Iraq did not possess such materials. In summarizing a National Intelligence Estimate for you in October 2002, Mr. Hadley noted that, while many agencies believed the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons." In short, these two intelligence agencies disagreed with your State of the Union assertion.
I am certain you would agree that, as we enter the fourth year of the invasion, it is important for the American people to understand exactly what set of circumstances led to your authorization of military action. For that reason, I ask that you release Mr. Hadley's memorandum.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Bravo to Congressman John Conyers. We should all be proud to have principled and courageous statesmen like him lead our party, especially during these very trying times.
But here are my--minor--quibbles.
First, when Conyers' claimed in this letter that Bush was "aware prior to the 2003 State of the Union that Iraq did not possess such materials", I think he went a bit too far, at least as I understand what was known or not known about Iraq's WMD at the time. Bush was clearly aware that there was a broad spectrum of opinion about Iraq's WMD in his administration and beyond, some convinced that it existed, some doubting it, and yet others convinced that it did not exist, and that there was NOT a strong consensus about this at all. He certainly had very good reason to believe that Iraq might not have had WMD at the time--and for that reason alone should not have taken us to war. But from what I understand he did not and could not have KNOWN for SURE that Iraq didn't possess WMD at the time.
And secondly, I wish that Conyers would have mentioned and indicated his support for Russ Feingold's Censure Resolution in this post. I realize that he sits in a different house of congress than Feingold, and that the censure resolution concerns the warrantless NSA wiretap program and not the Iraq war and WMD. But given that both derive from Bush's dishonesty, lawbreaking and violation of the constitution, are impeachable offenses, that Conyers has been trying to investigate both in his attempts at holding pre-impeachment hearings in the house, and that the senate Judiciary Committee was set to debate Feingold's censure resolution this morning, I though it would have been appropriate to bring it up in this post.
But like I said, minor quibbles, and otherwise, great post Congressman Conyers, and keep up the good fight. We're all here with you!
Update: It just occured to me that, in his defense, Bush might well answer this charge by admitting to have read this NIE memo in October '02, and realized that there was dissent within his administration, but that in the end, after weighing all the evidence, opinions and analyses, and consulting intensively with his top aides and national security experts, he made a judgement call that in his opinion the evidence of WMD was strong and convincing enough, and the danger of not acting on it grave enough, that he made a judgement call to go ahead with the war.
Of course, if he says this in his defense, we'll all know that it's a crock of shit, because, based on yet other accounts, we know that he was set to invade Iraq well before October '02 for reasons having nothing to do with WMD (i.e. neocon ideology and oil). And in any case, how does he explain his decision to keep the fact that there was dissent within his administration about WMD, along with the existance of this NIE memo, hidden from the public, and to lie to the public about what was known and believed about Iraq's WMD in his State of the Union Address?
A clever liar is still a liar. And a liar of Bush's scale not only deserves but absolutely needs to be impeached, let alone censured.