|
White House Still Won’t Answer When Bush First Learned Iran Halted
Its Nuclear Weapons Program
Think
Progress
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
On Monday, the Bush administration released the National
Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which revealed that “in fall 2003,
Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”
The revelation contradicted public
statements from Bush administration officials over recent months warning
that Iran was quickly developing a nuclear weapons program.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Bush was
briefed last Wednesday on the NIE report, but had learned there was new
information on Iran’s program sometime “in
the last few months.” Bush claimed yesterday that he was told
“in August” by DNI Mike McConnell that “we have some
new information.” But Bush claimed McConnell
didn’t tell him what the information was.
It has now been two days since the NIE was released,
and the White House is still unable to answer the most basic question
about when Bush first learned that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program.
This morning, in a press briefing with reporters, White House spokesman
Tony Fratto waffled
on three direct questions about whether Bush knew that Iran had halted
its nuclear weapons program months ago:
QUESTION: Just to clarify one point from the press
conference yesterday, the President was — said that he was told
by Mr. McConnell, just generally, that there had been some new intelligence
and that people were taking another look at it. Did the President at
that point ask any follow-up? Did Mr. McConnell offer any comments that,
in fact, there might have to be a serious reevaluation of the whole
intelligence?
FRATTO: What Director McConnell said is that we’re
going to go back and do rigorous analysis of this intelligence, and
when we can be certain of it, we’re going to come back and talk
to you — and that’s what they did. […]
QUESTION: In that conversation did McConnell
tell him that our previous intelligence could be all wrong?
How — (inaudible) — was he about that?
FRATTO: I don’t have anything on that.
[…]
QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Mike’s
question. Was there any indication from McConnell of the nature
of the intelligence in the meeting in August?
FRATTO: I can’t give you more detail
on what Director McConnell said to the President.
In an interview with CNN’s Rick Sanchez yesterday,
former Bush administration official Flynt
Leverett suggested the White House is being dishonest about what it
knew. “I can’t imagine that McConnell…would tell the
President about this and not tell him what the information actually said,”
Leverett said.
On PBS’ Newshour with Jim Lehrer last night, Senate
Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said, “I
was really struck when the president said that he only got the final judgments
on Tuesday,” adding that he “can’t believe” that
McConnell’s indication of new information didn’t prevent the
President from “talking
about a nuclear holocaust.”
Transcript:
QUESTION: Just to clarify one point from the press
conference yesterday, the President was — said that he was told
by Mr. McConnell, just generally, that there had been some new intelligence
and that people were taking another look at it. Did the President at
that point ask any follow-up? Did Mr. McConnell offer any comments that,
in fact, there might have to be a serious reevaluation of the whole
intelligence?
FRATTO: What Director McConnell said is that we’re
going to go back and do rigorous analysis of this intelligence, and
when we can be certain of it, we’re going to come back and talk
to you — and that’s what they did. I’ve seen some
criticism of, number one, of the international — I mean, of the
intelligence community in the last couple days, which I think is just
incredibly misguided. The intelligence community is out there doing
very difficult, courageous work to try to get the intelligence right.
They’re doing it in some of the most hardened places to try to
acquire this intelligence, and they’re doing an astounding job
of it, under Director McConnell’s leadership. And then I’ve
seen some criticism of the leadership of the intelligence community
for not being more forthcoming, and I think this is also unfounded.
It is important, if you’re going to tell the Congress and the
American people and the President of the United States an important
piece of intelligence information, that it be rigorously analyzed, that
you have the highest degree of confidence. And that’s what they
went back and did and they took the extra time to do that.
And then I’ve seen criticism that the President
should have either changed his rhetoric or asked more. What he asked
of his intelligence community was to tell him what was right when you
know it’s right, and that’s what they did. In terms of rhetoric,
there is no rhetoric to change when the facts on the ground still suggest
to any reasonable observer that Iran poses a threat and is a destabilizing
force, unless they change their activities.
QUESTION: In that conversation did McConnell tell him
that our previous intelligence could be all wrong? How — (inaudible)
— was he about that?
FRATTO: I don’t have anything on that.
[…]
QUESTION: I just want to follow up on Mike’s
question. Was there any indication from McConnell of the nature of the
intelligence in the meeting in August?
FRATTO: I can’t give you more detail on what
Director McConnell said to the President.
|
Yahoo! MyWeb
