by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 23, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

inding a new scapegoat, the White House fingered Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley for failing to properly vet Bush's State-of-the-Union speech, only one week after CIA director George J. Tenet reluctantly took the blame. Blaming Hadley helps restore confidence in Tenet and cleverly diverts attention away from key administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and, of course, the president himself. Hoping to derail the hottest pre-election year snafu, the White House expects to put the “yellowcake” uranium controversy to rest, especially after the Army's 101st Airborne division finished off Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusai, in a 6-hour firefight in Mosul. “The former regime is gone and will not come back,” said Bush, heralding new progress in Iraq.

      News of Uday and Qusai's last stand was welcomed relief to an administration smarting from charges that they manipulated intelligence and hyped the nuclear threat to sell its case for war. Proving that the latest move was more damage control than substance, White House Communication Director Dan Bartlett said Bush “has full confidence” in his national security team, including Hadley and Tenet. “The president and the national security advisor look to me to ensure that the substantive statements in those speeches are the ones in which the president can have confidence. And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility,” said Hadley, forgetting that his boss already denied that anyone in her office knew about the CIA's doubts about Iraq's pursuit of African uranium. Hadley admitted that he omitted the uranium claim in Bush's Ohio speech after reviewing two CIA memos in October.

      Hadley's press conference, though well-choreographed, heaped more suspicion on Dr. Rice, whose statements on June 8 CBS's Meet the Press looked inconsistent. “No one knew at the time [of the State-of-the-Union speech], in our circles—maybe some knew in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery,” said Rice. Hadley claims that he overlooked or forgot about the CIA memos calling into question British intelligence. With a prodigious memory, having already eliminated the uranium claim from Bush's October speech, it's inconceivable that Hadley developed amnesia. Signaling problems at the White House, nationally syndicated conservative talk radio shows began repeating Clinton's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Since Sept. 11, the White House claimed that Saddam was getting dangerously close to an A-bomb.

      Bush's State-of-the-Union message takes on greater significance because it was used as a pretext for war. In an inexplicable interview, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, one of the administration's most vociferous hawks, admitted in Vanity Fair's July edition that “WMD's just a convenient excuse for war,” making a concerted effort to discredit Hans Blix and U.N. weapons inspectors, unable to locate weapons of mass destruction. Four months later, the U.S. military faired no better, leaving the White House scrambling to justify the war. Ordinarily, errors in presidential speeches wouldn't be that big of a deal, except it's now costing American lives. “The process failed,” said White Communication Director Dan Bartlett, suggesting the National Security Agency simply dropped the ball. Both speechwriter Michael Gerson and Hadley reviewed the Oct. 5, 7 CIA memos.

      Making political hay, Democrats pounced on the “uranium” controversy, hoping that news of Saddam's sons wouldn't eclipse the story. “It remains to be seen whether the president himself was misled, whether those around him intentionally kept the information from him, or whether the president knowingly misled the American people,” said former Vermont governor and presidential hopeful Howard Dean. Dean's barbed comments don't address the fact that Bush took only symbolic steps. Failing to discipline Hadley or Tenet suggests that Bush still “has full confidence” in his national security team. Showing “full confidence” implies that Bush knew that members of his inner circle fully vetted and approved statements in his State-of-the-Union speech. Diverting blame but failing to take action makes a strong case that Bush accepted the idea of whipping up nuclear anxiety to justify toppling Saddam Hussein.

      Without firing CIA director George J. Tenet or Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, the White House appears to accept the idea of using nuclear anxiety as a pretext for war. Raising the nuclear threat since Sept. 11 made appeasement or working through the U.N. unacceptable. Despite killing Saddam's sick sons, questions still linger about manipulating intelligence to justify going to war. “These disclosures . . . raise more and more questions,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich) the highest ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, puzzled by reports that White House and National Security Agency knew the statement in the State-of-the-Union speech was indeed false. The White House can't have it both ways: Insisting that National Security Advisor Condoleezza was clueless yet stating that Tenet, Hadley and Gerson all knew British claims simply wouldn't hold water.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.