This is third part of a short series (Part 1, Part 2) discussing Murray Waas’s articles in National Journal (from early this year) on the uranium/Nigergate/Plamegate matter and the aluminum tubes issue. In Part 1, I highlighted key pieces of information in Waas’ recent articles that I had previously reported here at TLC – as part of my aluminum tubes coverage in the series "WMDgate: Fixing Intelligence Around Policy" and as part of my coverage of the uranium from Africa scandal "Uranium from Africa and the Valerie Plame expose (Treasongate): A Synopsis". In Part 2, I highlighted some information missing in Waas’ stories which, when filled in, provides even more evidence for the Bush White House’s deliberate deceptions and lies. In this part, I summarize some of the key information in Waas’ articles that was newly reported at that time (sections 1, 2 and 4 below) – information that adds to the body of evidence of the Bush administration’s history of deception and cover-up (section 3 below).
The articles of Waas that I focus on here are the ones from 3/30/06, 3/2/06 and 2/2/06. Note that all emphasis in quoted sections is mine.
- The Hadley/Rove cover-up operation
- Bush briefed directly by Tenet in Sep 2002
- The systematic pre-election cover-up in the SSCI Report
- Libby and Cheney briefed on CIA recall of uranium claim
In this post, he adds the revelations of Murray Waas to the long list of damning evidence he [eriposte] has already documented:
- Bush was specifically and personally warned prior to his State of the Union message that the Aluminum Tube allegations were doubted by several Intelligence Agencies. This was actively covered-up by Rove and Hadley.
- George Tenet personally briefed Bush in 2002 that there were broad doubts about the Aluminum Tube allegations.
- The 2004 SSCI report available before the election covered up the dissenting information about the Aluminum Tubes.
- Cheney and Libby were both informed in June 2003 that the C.I.A. no longer believed the Niger Uranium story, yet they continued to use it long thereafter.
-
We went to War in Iraq of flimsy evidence in the first place. Even that very thin evidence turned out to be wrong. And the Administration knew it was wrong before the war but continued to tout it as true. The only rational conclusion is that the evidence was only a justification for declaring war on Iraq, not the reason we invaded their country. The Administration declared war on Iraq, both unprovoked and unjustified. What was our real reason for invading Iraq?
-
We are now embroiled in a nasty Civil War in Iraq as well as an insurgency against our presence there. The Administration can talk of nothing but winning the war. If we went there because of Weapons of Mass Destruction, finding none we should have come home. If we went there to unseat Saddam Hussein, that goal is long past achieved, but we’re still there. Winning must mean something very specific and very important to the Administration to keep obstructing the will of the people and the will of the Congress. The Administration must still be pursuing the goal, the reason, they took us there in the first place.
-
The Administration’s public rhetoric – fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people – is hardly convincing. We’re fighting for something else.
that the War on Iraq was a war of conquest, and, perhaps, exploitation. If that is the truth, we need to think long and hard about whether winning is a good idea. I, for one, think it is a bad idea. We also have to think long and hard about what kind of country this Administration has turned us into, and whether it’s what we want to be. And finally, we need to deal with the leaders in this Administration who perpetrated this incredible deceit, and what to do with, to, and about them. eriposte‘s careful collection of evidence is one of the central keys to this puzzle…
…”eriposte’s careful collection of evidence is one of the central keys to this puzzle…”
As is yours Mickey, thank you.
dc