Let me see if I can set the record straight on this Africa uranium flap.
There’s a wild frenzy developing over 16 words President Bush used in his State of the Union Address last January. Some accuse him of lying to the American people and Congress to draw the nation to war without justification.
That’s a pretty heavy charge. That’s serious stuff. But is there any evidence to support this notion?
No.
Here are the 16 words President Bush and his advisers are being pilloried for using in his speech leading up to the Iraqi invasion: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
What’s wrong with this statement?
Absolutely nothing.
Democrats and other critics determined to undermine the president’s popularity following the war in Iraq say the statement is simply not true – that Iraq never sought to purchase uranium from Africa.
How do they know? They don’t. But they rely on a CIA finding that one document suggesting the conspiracy later turned out to be a forgery. But the British government and British intelligence continue to this day to say they have independent evidence of this Niger uranium effort, the forgery notwithstanding.
Could the Brits be wrong? Sure. But the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address will never be wrong, even if, upon further fact-checking, London’s MI-6 turns out to be incorrect in its assessment.
President Bush attributed the information to British intelligence. At the time, that statement was 100 percent accurate – and it remains that way today.
This is not, as some have suggested, a technical argument. This is not, as some have suggested, parsing words a la Bill Clinton. This is, however, simply the way we normally interpret the language.
When we make statements and attribute them to other sources, we quite clearly show we are uncertain about the authenticity of those claims. Yet we provide sourcing to allow the reader or listener to make his or her own judgment about the facts.
That’s what President Bush did in his speech. It was correct then and it is correct now.
So, what on earth is all the fuss about?
President Bush has not been served well by some of his top aides on this issue. Some have undermined his effort by stating the line was inaccurate and should not have been in the speech. These erroneous admissions have encouraged the president’s critics and undermined British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has stood firm, despite enormous political opposition at home, insisting the British intelligence on Iraq is still right.
No votes were changed in Congress because of those 16 words in the State of the Union Address. The Congress had voted to authorize military action against Iraq months earlier. Those 16 words had no impact on American foreign policy. The decisions about Iraq had already been made.
But there’s blood in the water, and the opposition thinks it has found an issue it can use to attack the president. There are calls for hearings, investigations. They want to know what the president knew and when he knew it. They’re reliving Watergate over these 16 words in a State of the Union Address.
My advice to President Bush is not to cave. I like what he said Monday during his press conference with Kofi Annan.
“I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence,” he said. “And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction and that our country made the right decision.”
And that’s really what it’s all about in the final analysis.
