2:45PM Today: Reporters Should Ask Hadley About His Involvement In Leak Scandal
2:45PM Today: Reporters Should Ask Hadley About His Involvement In Leak Scandal
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is holding a press conference today at 2:45PM. Purportedly, it’s about the President’s trip to Latin America. Responsible journalists, however, should ask Hadley about his role in the CIA leak scandal. Specifically, we learned in Hadley’s 7/22/03 press briefing, that he was warned three times by the CIA – before the 2003 State of the Union Address — not to include the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.
OCTOBER 5 – CIA SENDS MEMO WARNING HADLEY AND SPEECH WRITER MICHAEL GERSON: As described by Hadley, the memo noted “that CIA had told the Congress about concerns about the British claim†on uranium sales from Africa.
OCTOBER 6 – CIA SENDS MEMO WARNING CONDOLEEZZA RICE AND HADLEY: The memo informed the White House that the Africa uranium story “was one of two issues where we differed with the British intelligence.â€
OCTOBER 5, 6, 7 – TENET CALLS HADLEY AND SAYS “HE DID NOT WANT THE PRESIDENT TO BE A FACT WITNESS FOR THAT STATEMENT”: “As we’ve already disclosed publicly, George Tenet had a brief telephone conversation with me during the clearance process for the October 7 Cincinnati speech. This was the one — he asked that any reference to Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium from sources from Africa to be deleted from the speech…Based on DCI Tenet’s request, the sentence was deleted from the Cincinnati speech, when he said he did not want the President to be a fact witness for that statement.”
Hadley’s excuse as to why the information ended up the State of the Union anyway? I forgot:
But the fact is that given the October 5 and 6 CIA memorandum, and my telephone with the DCI Tenet at roughly the same time, I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue.
More information on Hadley’s role in the leak scandal here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
48 Responses to “2:45PM Today: Reporters Should Ask Hadley About His Involvement In Leak Scandal”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
[…] More information on Hadley’s role in the leak scandal here. […]
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:21 pm“responsible journalists” - your faith in your fellow man warms my heart.
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:38 pmif asked, Hadley will simply pull a McClellan and say he can’t comment on an “ongoing” investigation… mark my words… we won’t get anything of substance out of him, especially since it’s HIS ass on the line…
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:42 pmI got an exerpt:
“Blah Blah Blah Latin America Blah Blah Blah Latin America I can’t comment Blah Blah Blah Latin America Blah Blah Blah doing the people’s business Blah Blah Blah Latin American yada yada yada…”
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:42 pmI think Hadley is the next one to be indicted. Why does the press give him a free pass?
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:10 pmAh, yes. Competent leadership at its finest. “I should have recalled” that information that I had recieved during the week. Yeah, a few days can be a long time to have to remember important issues pertaining to national security.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:12 pmAh, yes. Competent leadership at its finest. “I should have recalled†that information that I had recieved during the week. Yeah, a few days can be a long time to have to remember important issues pertaining to national security.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:33 pmI think Hadley is the next one to be indicted. Why does the press give him a free pass?.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:33 pmI got an exerpt:
“Blah Blah Blah Latin America Blah Blah Blah Latin America I can’t comment Blah Blah Blah Latin America Blah Blah Blah doing the people’s business Blah Blah Blah Latin American yada yada yada..…â€
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:34 pmif asked, Hadley will simply pull a McClellan and say he can’t comment on an “ongoing†investigation… mark my words… we won’t get anything of substance out of him, especially since it’s HIS ass on the line…
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:35 pm“responsible journalists†- your faith in your fellow man warms my heart.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:35 pmFrom the Washington Post:
PROOF THAT THE AMERICAN DICTATOR AND AMERICAN TALIBAN
ARE USING CONCENTRATION CAMPS:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:47 pmDebate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
By Dana PriestWashington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; Page A01
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions.
The existence and locations of the facilities — referred to as “black sites” in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents — are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.
The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.
While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.
But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military — which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress — have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
Although the CIA will not acknowledge details of its system, intelligence officials defend the agency’s approach, arguing that the successful defense of the country requires that the agency be empowered to hold and interrogate suspected terrorists for as long as necessary and without restrictions imposed by the U.S. legal system or even by the military tribunals established for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation.
The secret detention system was conceived in the chaotic and anxious first months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the working assumption was that a second strike was imminent.
Since then, the arrangement has been increasingly debated within the CIA, where considerable concern lingers about the legality, morality and practicality of holding even unrepentant terrorists in such isolation and secrecy, perhaps for the duration of their lives. Mid-level and senior CIA officers began arguing two years ago that the system was unsustainable and diverted the agency from its unique espionage mission.
“We never sat down, as far as I know, and came up with a grand strategy,” said one former senior intelligence officer who is familiar with the program but not the location of the prisons. “Everything was very reactive. That’s how you get to a situation where you pick people up, send them into a netherworld and don’t say, ‘What are we going to do with them afterwards?’ “
If you look closely at the WAPO article, you see that they began getting the seceret prisons running BEFORE the 9/11 attacks.
Did Bush and Cheeney plan all this?
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:49 pmI don´t think he will even answer some facts about the Latin American trip… Do you think the world is a safer place?? Then why does the President need to close down the Sheraton Hotel at Mar del Plata, send all its employees on a vacation, and replace them with 2,000 persons to keep him safe? All other 32 heads-of-state will only have 3 bodyguards, while Bush has 420 assigned to him - why is that, Sir? Who is paying for all this?? How much is security costing all of us?
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:54 pmRR,
The PNAC NeoCon treatise written in the early 90s and signed by Cheney specifically says we would need a pearl harbor like event in order to implement the NeoCon agenda. Considering it is laid out so clearly, it does make a rational person stop and pause. Considering the Saudi/Bin Laden families have strong ties to Texas and the Bush family and virtually every attacker was Saudi and yet we’ve done nothing with the Saudi government - yeah it makes one question…
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:58 pmI want to see Bush and Cheeney removed from office NOW.
VOTETOIMPEACH.ORG
I was soooo wrong, and such an idiot for supporting a murdering administration.
I want to extend a personal apology to all on this blog.
I want to say those of you that thought I was
mighty aphroditie, Northeast Delima, Turk, Joe Sixpack and Jeff Gannon were
totally correct.
I am only one person, and I have tried to show that there are more than one person that support the
Bush administration.
I am paid by the administration, and i feel totally dirty and guilty.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:05 pmOkay, I’m confused…who’s imitating wwallace?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:14 pmRyan, It all makes perfect sense to me:
Bush/Bin Ladens own Carlyle group - sell arms to both sides and profit greatly from any conflict.
Bush/Saudi royal family own Citibank- they get 3.5% of every dollar we spend on goods to finance their sick agenda. Saudi royal’s funnel money to Al Queda.
Dumbya’s Uncle works at the bank and personally handles big clients accounts, one of his accounts he personally over sees is Saudi royal princess, and funds from her account were transferred to one of the Hijackers.
9/11 attacks look like an inside job. Cheeney and dumbya-the-smarter were CIA in the 1960’s and had a hand in the “operation northwoods” that was scrapped by McNamara. Wait 40 yrs, and poof - pearl harbor type attack.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:15 pmGood point - the only thing I can think of is this must be all one giant conspiracy with Cheney the mastermind behind all of it. They all lied lied lied. Death to Bush. Death to Cheney. Death to the whole administration.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:17 pmYou would think that Jeb is smarter than dumbya, why wouldn’t they groom him for the job of pres?
I think it is because he manages the drug traffic for the family coming in through FL.
Neil is smarter, why not him for pres? Because he is smart and like daddy works for the CIA under cover? His company was in the three buildings that collapsed on 9/10. When asked what they were doing there the only comment was “installing security devices” when pressed about what type devices, they said security devices and wouldn’t go further. Why did the towers collapse straight down like controlled demo?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:21 pmYou people are sick. If you think for one moment that Bush/Cheney created 9/11, you have totally lost it period. You are witnessing the implosion of the democratic party as we knew it this week. It will grow weaker and weaker until someone figures out that the only way to save it are with new ideas and leaders. Until then, I am making some popcorn and enjoying the show.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:28 pmSorry, one more thing about Neil:
Neil had a nanny for their children. She didn’t live in their house like Neil said, she had her own house and her son lived with her there.
In late Sept. after the attacks she was killed outside Neil’s house. The story goes that the live-in babysitter went to her car to get “something” at 9 p.m. and on her way back to the house her car (which had been left in gear all day) began rolling and went across a busy highway, another street and managed to hit her an pin her to a guard building crushing her to death. The local VA newspaper NEVER reported on this.
When another WAPO reporter checked into this, he found her listing and called her phone # which was answered by her son. Her son confirmed that she didn’t live with the bushes. He said he didn’t feel “safe” talking further about his mothers death.
HMMMMM>
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:30 pmHer name was Bertha Champagne. Wikipedia her.
Also, why didn’t all the security at the estate hear any of this? Why didn’t someone call 911 before she was dead? Why did they wait over an hour?
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:31 pmI did the wikipedia and it worked.
I think #18 is right.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:33 pmI have been checking, the 9/11 attacks look a lot like the 1960 operation northwoods.
Stage a domestic terror attack and blame someone else. We all know this administration wanted to go to war before 2000 with Iraq.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:35 pmSorry Randy, you’re preaching to the wrong congregation if you think that we have any problem believing that this government could do 9/11. I have always thought so, since the second plane hit the tower. It is so obvious it hides in plain sight. Hopefully we will get the proof.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:55 pmI would rather that all Americans knew and that we have a crisis about it, rather than let the lying basterds get away with it.
Enjoy your deluded state of ignorance while you may.
#21
You are witnessing the implosion of the democratic party as we knew it this week.
Oh really? Well, the Democrats got Frist to agree to a bipartisan commission to check on the progress of Phase II, didn’t they? And, if they’ve already had Phase II, as Scott McClellan says, then why appoint the commission? Answer that one, pretty boy. Sure sounds like an implosion to me…
Oh, and this, Randy: Please read the PNAC and then come back here and let’s have a talk. Tell us that it’s fake. I want to hear you say that it all was really created by some sicko Democrats in secret who want to weaken the Republican party. I dare you. Tell us that 9/11 didn’t fit into this in any way (created by Bush & Co. or otherwise). Tell us that it in no way has anything to do with why we invaded Iraq. Finally, tell us why PNAC exists in the first place and tell us that you support it 110%.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:57 pmis hadleys news conference going to be posted and if so, where?
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:09 pmbilljpa
Randy…a few quotes from the PNAC Web site for you to ponder.
From the letter to Pres. Clinton (1998):
The policy of “containment†of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months.
and…
Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production.
and…
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Really? I thought that Colin Powell and Condi Rice both told us a few years ago (wasn’t it in Spring 2001?) that the containment of Saddam was working and that he did not pose a threat…?
Oh, and this thought. Nowhere in the letter to Pres. Clinton does it say that we need to remove Saddam because he has been mean to his own people. Wasn’t that reason #5 or #6 from the G.W. Bush & Co. playbook?
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:14 pmThis administration is way too corrupt to remain in power.
Frist, isn’t he in trouble for corruption and insider trading?
I just can’t keep all the GOP Criminals straight without my notes.
Now wasn’t it Clinton that lied us into war?
Oh, no that was BUSH.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:47 pmWasn’t it Clinton that set up illegal torture centers?
No, that was Bush/Cheeney/Rove/Libby too.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:48 pmWasn’t it Clinton that barfed on a China VIP?
No, that was Bush Sr.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:49 pmWasn’t it Clinton that was drunk on his bike and ran over a security guard, sending him to the hospital at the G8 summit?
No, that was Bush.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:50 pmWasn’t it Clinton that is the king of vacations?
Nope, Bush again.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:52 pmWasn’t it Hillary Clinton that murdered her highschool boyfriend and has lied about it ever since?
Nope, that was Laura Bush.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:53 pmWasn’t it Clinton that was drunk and fell down and bumped his head and claimed it was a pretzel he choked on?
No, that was Bush too.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:54 pmOk, my bad, I am an idiot.
I really don’t believe all this. I am paid to try to disrupt your board.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:55 pmI checked this all out, and now I know that 9/11 was planned by the Bush administration.
Impeach Immediately.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:05 pmI want to know why President GW Bush has ceded control of our involvement in the iraq war to the terrorists and insurgents. He basically says we gotta stay ’til they say ‘UNCLE’…but what if they never do? He won’t set a timeline for withdrawal b/c that would either encourage them or convince them to wait us out…(how about saying we’ll stay ’til 2025 in the hopes the baddies just decide to hunker down and wait us out?) He has called for us staying the course until victory is achieved…while victory has never been defined (even if it were possible which it may not be according to our president) we are basically told that our mission is to provide security and that as the Iraqis stand up we will sit down–I mean stand down. We can’t leave now because that would dishonor our dead…not that our administration which lied, bullied, misled and scared us into a pre-emptive war, in order to disarm that crazy destabalizing dictator that denied having those missing WMDs could possibly know anything of honor! But we are also told (by the generals) that this war cannot be won militarily (who said mission accomplished?). We are told by Rummy that these guys are dead enders and desperate individuals…and yet…and yet…they appear to be kicking our butt over there. Has anyone else noticed that the world’s sole superpower is gettin its clock cleaned? and our wallet emptied?
Opps I forgot, freedom is on the March (where? don’t ask…) Free societies are peaceful societies…which is why we are at war with poverty, drugs, terrorism, pornography, iraq, and did i mention the global struggle with radical islamic jihadis. The enemy is trying to shake our will… We’re making progress in iraq…don’t worry be happy.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:14 pmhey daniel, you’re my brother… you are full of crap.
We were lied into this war so that the carlyle group could make the bush family rich beyond their wildest evilest dreams.
come on, step away from the dark side.
November 2nd, 2005 at 5:27 pmNo one said Bush was Behind the Attacks, I believe however that He knew of them, and the Plan was to let it Continue, like Peral Harbor they Fomented the Attack. Its not so hard to See.
I have Been a Licensed Aircraft Mechanic since 1987 on
Large Jets Dc-8 ,Dc-9, 737, Md-80, 757, 767, 727 series Aircraft.
“TRIPOD”
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:01 pmhttp://www.legitgov.org/9_1_1_oddities.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of pertinence to “Scooter’s” case and the pack of lies he was concealing is Strauss’s idea that a “philosopher elite” (i.e., Straussians) must rule. Moreover they must do so covertly. As someone remarked before last Friday, “Who ever heard of I. Lewis Libby?” a man who shunned the spotlight and operated behind the scenes. The reason for such covert rule, or cabal, is that the “vulgar” herd, as Strauss liked to call the rest of us, cannot appreciate “higher truths” such as the inevitability and necessity of wars in relations between states and even the utility of wars in governing a state. So the covert elite must be certain that myths like religion or the glory of the nation are not weakened for these are among the best ways to rule over the ignorant herd and lead it into war. (Note that the Straussians themselves are not religious. They are “above” religion, capable of dealing with tough truths like man’s mortality. But in their view, religion is a crucial factor in governing in their view. Irving Kristol, following Strauss, tells us that religion is “far more important politically” than the Founding Fathers believed and that to rescue America it is necessary “to breathe new life into the older, now largely comatose religious orthodoxies.” (AR, p. 148). Any religion will do  except perhaps Islam, which is more or less verboten, given the affinity of all leading neocons for Israel. Hence the neocons readily embrace the ideology and leadership of Christian fundamentalism which can keep the crowd under control and get them to march off to war and death. The neocons are mainly interested in foreign policy, as was Strauss, but in exchange for the support of the religious Right in foreign affairs, the neocons line up behind the domestic program of the fundamentalists.
I think Wwallace has Finally Seen the Light.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:03 pmIf so, Kudos and Welcome Aboard.
I have been a total asshole idiot.
I am truly sorry.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:39 pmI have been too!
I am truly sorry I was such a flake, asshole idiot.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:40 pmBush sucks, impeach now.
Cheeeney is a lying asshole, he needs to go fu*****khimself.
Hotel gitmo for them
Hey hey, jr. and chey, how many kids did you kill today?
do you feel a DRAFT?
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:11 amDid you notice that cracker dumbya and his boyfriend-killing wife didn’t even speak at Rosa’s funeral?
Cracker Mo.Fo.
I hate that lying bastard!
He sends poor kids off to be killed and his cracker ass daughters live the life of a princess.
Impeach they lying bastard
November 3rd, 2005 at 2:19 am[…] What They Knew: The administration was warned at least three times not to make the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. Also, the CIA said the “Brits have exaggerated this issue.†[Guardian, 7/10/04] […]
November 7th, 2005 at 1:25 pm[…] FALSE CLAIM — NUCLEAR THREAT: Bush argued in his 2003 State of the Union that Iraq was close to developing a nuclear weapon. He offered two pieces of evidence: 1) “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” and 2) Iraq “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” On the first count, it has been well documented that the administration was warned at least three times not to claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. The administration was also warned that its reliance on a Niger document was misplaced and that it should not rely on British intelligence. On the second count, Condoleezza Rice claimed the aluminum tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs” despite the fact that she had previously been informed that “the government’s foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.” The day before Bush’s 2003 State of the Union, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded the tubes “would not be suitable” for a nuclear program. The Department of Energy also published a dissenting view of the use of the aluminum tubes in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. […]
November 7th, 2005 at 6:08 pm