NY Times Editorial: The Uranium Fiction

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/12/opinion/12SAT1.html


We're glad that someone in Washington has finally taken responsibility for letting President Bush make a false accusation about Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program in the State of the Union address last January, but the matter will not end there. George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, stepped up to the issue yesterday when he said the C.I.A. had approved Mr. Bush's speech and failed to advise him to drop the mistaken charge that Iraq had recently tried to import significant quantities of uranium from an African nation, later identified as Niger. Now the American people need to know how the accusation got into the speech in the first place, and whether it was put there with an intent to deceive the nation. The White House has a lot of explaining to do.

...

I meant to post this in GD.

mess.
He will go, and the masses will be appeased.

Doesnt sound like many people jumped on board the good ship linch the CIA...

Does the NYT want us to believe that the accusation about SH's alleged nuke program just sort of "appeared" in the speech, yet no one in the WH talked about it with the president? You mean, in the WH, it's possible that something this important isn't even discussed before the president uses it in a major address to the nation? bush had no idea what the point was, never talked about it or questioned it? Just took his copy of the speech and marched up to the podium with it, having neven discussed the subject prior?

Sounds like Clarence Thomas's claim that he had not once ever talked about abortion and Roe v. Wade, prior to becoming nominated by Poppy, for a seat on the Supreme Court.

They clearly don't buy what the Bushists are selling.

This seemed to be a damning editorial to me...they more or less said that the Tenent statement didn't shed light on anything and they want the TRUTH.