![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sisyphusshruggedSenior Bush administration officials adjusted their defense today of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, insisting that the phrasing was accurate even if some of the underlying evidence was unsubstantiated.
Condeleeza Rice, the national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate appearances on Sunday television talk shows that the disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered accurate today.
While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's interest in acquiring African uranium.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush, contended that Saddam Hussein was pursuing efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. Among other elements he cited to make his case, he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Dr. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said: "The statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press": "It turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does Ñ did say that Ñ and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."
On the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld added: "It didn't rise to the standard of a presidential speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically accurate."
The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a shift in the focus of the White House's strategy in dealing with the political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part on uncorroborated reports from abroad.
It came after a week in which the White House first repudiated the statement and then blamed the Central Intelligence Agency for allowing Mr. Bush to make it. On Friday, George Tenet, director of central intelligence, accepted responsibility, saying, "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
But the bout of fingerpointing between the White House and the agency concerning the African uranium only served to intensify the criticism of the administration for its handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Rather than quelling the controversy, the White House stoked it through official statements, providing an opening for Democratic leaders to attack the administration's handling of the intelligence. So today effort by Dr. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to be a response by the White House to turn down the flame on a hot story that the White House itself had helped ignite just days earlier.
Some White House officials suggested that the public is less interested in the story's ins and outs than the news media and the political opposition, and that this is why the administration has chosen this approach...
Still not clear about what they mean by "is" but I'm sure they'll get to it.
"...people think it was technically accurate."?
Somebody, quick, tell these people not to eat the daisies.
Condeleeza Rice, the national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate appearances on Sunday television talk shows that the disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered accurate today.
While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's interest in acquiring African uranium.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush, contended that Saddam Hussein was pursuing efforts to develop a nuclear bomb. Among other elements he cited to make his case, he said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Dr. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said: "The statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press": "It turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does Ñ did say that Ñ and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."
On the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld added: "It didn't rise to the standard of a presidential speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically accurate."
The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a shift in the focus of the White House's strategy in dealing with the political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part on uncorroborated reports from abroad.
It came after a week in which the White House first repudiated the statement and then blamed the Central Intelligence Agency for allowing Mr. Bush to make it. On Friday, George Tenet, director of central intelligence, accepted responsibility, saying, "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
But the bout of fingerpointing between the White House and the agency concerning the African uranium only served to intensify the criticism of the administration for its handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Rather than quelling the controversy, the White House stoked it through official statements, providing an opening for Democratic leaders to attack the administration's handling of the intelligence. So today effort by Dr. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to be a response by the White House to turn down the flame on a hot story that the White House itself had helped ignite just days earlier.
Some White House officials suggested that the public is less interested in the story's ins and outs than the news media and the political opposition, and that this is why the administration has chosen this approach...
Still not clear about what they mean by "is" but I'm sure they'll get to it.
"...people think it was technically accurate."?
Somebody, quick, tell these people not to eat the daisies.
