Intelligence

DATE=7/16/03

TYPE=U-S OPINION ROUNDUP

TITLE=BUSH / NIGER URANIUM

NUMBER=6-13007

BYLINE=ANDREW GUTHRIE

DATELINE=Washington

EDITOR=Assignments

TELEPHONE=619-3335

CONTENT=

INTRO: A dispute over the accuracy of a charge made by President Bush in his State of the Union address about a supposed Iraqi uranium purchase in Niger continues to get attention in Washington. It has fueled criticism of the President by Democrats, especially presidential contenders, and caused C-I-A Director George Tenet to accept blame for an inaccurate intelligence assessment.

The topic has become, by far, the most popular editorial subject in months, with most comments critical of Mr. Bush. Here's V-O-A's ___________ now with a sampling in today's U-S Opinion Roundup.

TEXT: C-I-A Director Tenet [was meeting / met] with a Senate Committee at midweek (Wednesday) to further explain how faulty intelligence worked its way into a presidential address. Florida's Miami Herald says the "White House Owes Us Straight Answers."

VOICE: The White House's grudging admission that it didn't have sufficient evidence to support yet another key argument for going to war - Iraq's alleged attempts to buy nuclear materials in Africa - has rightly unleashed a storm of questions. Yet this is only the latest revelation to damage the Bush administration's credibility. When added to a string of other debunked claims, serious concerns arise about the administration's use of intelligence to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

TEXT: On New York's Long Island, Newsday says in part: "There is something very disturbing about the manner in which the White House is now responding to allegations that it misused intelligence information to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein."

And in North Carolina, Raleigh's News and Observer adds:

VOICE: C-I-A director Tenet has figuratively put himself in front of President Bush as a blame shield, ready to take the pounding for a still-unfolding story: Who knew what, and who told what to whom, about the allegation that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa?

TEXT: Pennsylvania's Greensburg Tribune-Review says this about the majority of editorials on the subject.

VOICE: First, let's dispatch with this liberal-fueled nonsense that President Bush, quote, lied unquote, to the American people in laying out his rationale for taking out [Editors: "unseating"] Saddam Hussein. There's no evidence that Mr. Bush knowingly included a passage in [his] State of the Union speech that the Iraqi dictator sought nuclear materials from Niger.

TEXT: Nearby however, Pittsburgh's Post-Gazette disagrees, suggesting in a headline that "[The] C-I-A's Tenet takes the blame for the president."

And a disgruntled Kansas City [Missouri] Star describes the administration's stance this way:

VOICE: [It] is falling back into the usual defenses for politicians caught in embarrassing situations: complaints about a media "feeding frenzy," flights of historical revisionism, and denials that defy common sense. Such tactics merely compound the damage [and Mr.] Bush can ill afford this damage. Nor can the country.

TEXT: Responding to the majority view, The Detroit [Michigan] News, while referring to the administration's intelligence handling as "sloppy with the facts," nevertheless suggests:

VOICE: Criticism of [Mr.] Bush's speech falls short of proving deliberate deception aimed at winning approval for war with Iraq.

TEXT: The Washington Post is telling the public and its media colleagues to "Wait for the Facts" on this, noting: "So far there is no hard evidence that President Bush or his top aides knowingly falsified the case for war." But in Iowa, The Des Moines Register complains:

VOICE: This was not the first time the C-I-A had warned administration officials about the uranium report, which turned out to be a forgery. It is unfortunate that the discussion over the merits of evidence for going to war has become so narrowly focused on a single, inaccurate assertion. The fact is, all of the assertions used to justify the hasty invasion ought to be carefully reviewed in light of the failure - so far - to find any of the "weapons of mass destruction" described by the president in excruciating detail.

TEXT: On that note from Iowa, we conclude this sampling of editorials on the current dispute about discredited intelligence used in the president's State of the Union address.

NEB/ANG/RH