ROOMMATES
nate! for GREAT 3/2 house
1/3bills. CONVENIENT loca-
iAUTIFUL park. Jenny, 512-
2bdrm apartment. $247/mo.-
1-6293.
20/mo. +electricity, 3txl/3baat
Apartments, great living! 979-
175/mo +bllls. 4/2 house,8itii-
TAMU, 731-1461.
jplex available August lOtt.
/2bills. Fenced yard, big dot-
I ceiling. 979-240-3034, Kris-
luplex, non-smoking, cleat
,ugust 6th, $317/mo +1/3bills,
718-8715.
Huge 2/1, 1200sqft, $375/m,
\ugust 6th. 832-642-0094.
I for 3/2 townhouse, on bus
/mo, 817-517-4023.
tale wanted, Harvey tom
5 $350/mo +1/2 utilities. 693-
lush administration distorted facts
■t;
i \
tate wanted. 2/1 dt
-1/2bills. Water paid,
1025.
reeded, $350/mo. +1/3-elec,
te (everything else paid). Cal
•03-780-8319.
ommate needed for 3/2 house
i. Call Julie 764-4333.
late wanted, University Con-
mo. Available August 1, year
38-3446.
3/2 house, $225/mo +112
594-7921.
mate needed. 2/1.5 4-piet
eposit +1/2bills. W/D, (era:
to bus-route. AvaiWe
t-2194.
mate needed. 3/2 house«
No pets. $320/mo. +1/3tii
0.
■smoking $250/mo +1/3M1
touse, fenced yard,
ing nearby. 25-minutes noi
•79-589-2466
pets o k '(O'
5 needed, brand new 3/3do
d yard, security system. Cal
59.
3b* ad
lommates needed,
lished on bus-route, no pels,
deposit, +1 futilities
d for 3bdrm/2ba in new Bryai
rion close to Blinn. $375/im
lie 979-777-2297.
• 3bdrm/2ba/2gar house. 4-
AMU. W/D. $385/mo. Cal
7; 281-388-0519.
mates needed. 3/2 duplex,
, close to campus, $275/nio,
II John 979-220-5289.
two-story, swimming pool,
lunity. $450/mo +1/3bills,
1 or earlier, non-smoking
or 4/3 new home, 904 to-
d, $400/mo. +1/4utilities.Cal
596-07 66.
needed, 3bdrm/2bth new
» 8/15/03, $400/mo., off Well-
ttle. Call Nikki at 281-543-
mate needed ASAP. 3/2 du-
spring, pets o.k., stablesfoi
no, 778-5713.
mate needed. For August
obile home. $275/mo. +1/3-
96-2119.
mate wanted. 333/mo, 3/2,5
•els allowed, on bus route,
ad for 3/3 townhouse ini
ting, blocks from TAMU,
3util. 979-694-0952, 512-
wanted. Share 4bd/2ba
le other Grad. Own bdiba.
I, shuttle, $400/mo. 779-
g' roommate needed for 3/3
le, furnished, w/d, parking,
'3util. (979)764-9032 or
I.
needed for 2bdrm/2bth stu-
home, 5-mins from TAMU,
, w/d, $370/mo. Available
0-2737.
Opinion
The Battalion
lillsili
OUESHONABIE INTE11IGENCE?
he British government
has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought
ignificant quantities of uranium
rom Africa,” said President
pets|eorgeW. Bush in his 2003 State
Union Address. This state-
rtisnow at the center of the controversy over
iliether the Bush administration exaggerated the
real Iraq posed to the United States when it
iade the case for preemptive war.
The White House, hoping to silence its critics,
cently declassified sections of a National
diligence Estimate, prepared in October 2002,
deeming Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction
apabilities. The document, however, raises more
pestions than it answers. It clearly shows that
^administration misrepresented the judgments
the intelligence community on Iraq.
The CIA defines an NIE as the most authori-
ative intelligence document. It provides the con-
«nsus judgments of the intelligence services and
saddressed to the chief policymakers - up to
ad including the president. The October NIE
ivided key judgments of six major intelligence
sencies on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.
Bush and his Cabinet must have read this
teument, or at least its summary.
Idministration officials say even this synopsis
lagged all doubts about the intelligence used
noted dissenting judgments by intelligence
pcies.
This directly contradicts National Security
Idviser Condoleeza Rice, who, on July 11,
laimed, “ ... If there were doubts about the
uderlying intelligence to that NIE, those doubts
icre not communicated to the president, to the
•icepresident or to me.”
The first paragraph of the NIE’s key judg
es refers to a section in which the State
lepartment's Bureau of Intelligence and
torch, or INR, explicitly stated its doubts
tat the intelligence. “The activities we have .
toed do not, however, add up to a compelling
sethat Iraq is currently pursuing ... nuclear
tapons. (The) INR considers the available evi-
iiice inadequate to support such a judgment.”
Rice maintains that in the NIE, “(W)hat (the)
I did not take a footnote to is the consensus
ewthat the Iraqis were actively trying to pur-
icanuclear weapons program, reconstituting
idso forth.” However, the INR stated that it
ried “persuasive evidence that Baghdad has
lunched a coherent effort to reconstitute its
iiclear weapons program.”
The INR also said that claims of Iraq attempt-
igto obtain uranium from Africa were “highly
dubious.” If the national security adviser, the
resident and the vice president maintain that
iieyhad no idea about the intelligence inconsis-
mcies that existed, overlooking them was their
n fault; that, or they are lying.
The NIE did say that Iraq could make a
Klear weapon in a year, but only if it acquired
weapons-grade material. Otherwise, it
ledicted that Iraq would have such a weapon by
107 to 2009. These remarks still do not indicate
Wlraq was an immediate nuclear threat, a
laim the vice president made when he declared,
ft believe (Saddam) has, in fact, reconstituted
udear weapons” during a March 16 “Meet The
MIDHAT FAROOQI
Press” interview.
The NIE makes three more
judgments with low confidence:
that Saddam would use weapons
of mass destruction; that Saddam
would secretly attack the U.S.
homeland; and that
Saddam would give weapons
to al-Qaida. v ,
Far from certain
about these three pos
sibilities, the NIE
stated that
Saddam
“appears to be
drawing a line
short of con
ducting ter
rorist
attacks...
against the
United
States.” It
also said
Saddam
might
decide to
take the
“extreme
step” of
assisting al-
Qaida in a ter
rorist attack only
if he was “suffi
ciently desperate”
and felt that it “would
be his last chance to
exact vengeance.” Is this
Donald Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof
evidence” of an Iraq/al-Qaida
link?
Bush said last month that, “Iraq could decide
on any given day to provide a biological or
chemical weapon to a terrorist group ...” But
rather than ‘any given day,’ the NIE judged that
this would occur only “if Baghdad feared an
attack that threatened the survival of the regime
was imminent or unavoidable.”
) So today, Saddam is at large, and since his
life is threatened, the possibility of him cooperat
ing with al-Qaida is more likely now than ever.
Conveniently, the chemical and biological
weapons he possessed are missing, too. The
Bush administration has yet to publicly state
that, based on the NIE, Saddam is a bigger threat
now than before the United States attacked;
No one wants Saddam back in power. His
oppressive policies and murderous actions were
wrong. However, distorting the intelligence to
frame a guilty man is wrong, and two wrongs
don’t make a right.
‘Uranium-gate’ scandal doesn’t exist
Midhat Farooqi is a junior
genetics major.
Graphic by Grade Arenas
T he Bush administration has
been batted around
Washington over the past few
weeks because of the president’s
statements on uranium coming from
Niger. Though many Democrats
would love to affix the
proverbial “gate” to this latest
would-be scandal, it
shouldn’t happen. The
issue is so transpar
ently political it
should have fiz
zled before it
even got off
the ground.
But such is
not the
case, and
the time
has come
to put it
to rest.
In
January,
President
George
W. Bush
presented
his State of
the Union
Address. In it
are the now-
famous words:
“The British gov
ernment has
learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of
uranium from Africa.”
While technically correct, major news sources
have confirmed that a U.S.-sponsored trip to
Niger to corroborate British findings revealed a
discrepancy between American and British intel
ligence.
In an interview with CNN, former ambassador
Joseph Wilspn said he was sent to Niger to inves
tigate the British intelligence claims. “I traveled
(to Niger),” Wilson stated, “spent eight days out
there, and concluded that it was impossible that
this sort of transaction could be done.”
A critic of the war in Iraq, Wilson’s trip is the
crux of the entire onslaught Bush’s critics have
unleashed. The argument follows that the presi
dent knew about Wilson’s findings, yet disre
garded the conclusions so he could make a better
case for the war. From Wilson’s statements stem
questions about what the president knew and
when he knew it, harking back to the days of
Watergate. But this simply is not another
Watergate.
In a Boston Globe column last week, Ellen
Goodman brought up an interesting point about
making qualified statements. In a critique of the
president’s statement, Goodman reminisced
about her early days of being a fact checker. “No
one got into serious, job-ending doo-doo as long
as they had a citation. It was OK to print some
thing wrong as long as you could shift the
blame.” The obvious parallel is that the president
did much the same insofar as he quoted British
MICHAEL WARD
intelligence in making a claim and
thus would be able to shift the
blame should the need arise.
However, many are failing to
point out that British intelligence
is standing behind its story.
According to the BBC, Blair said,
“Let me just say this on the issue to do with
Africa and uranium. The British intelligence
that we have we believe is genuine. We stand
by that intelligence.” Bush was making a state
ment of fact which he qualified by attributing
the source to British intelligence - intelligence
that the British government maintains is true.
Bush was hot quoting the National Enquirer or
some second-rate expert. While it would defi
nitely be irresponsible to quote an illegitimate
source, British intelligence is reliable and
respected. Why is this still an issue?
Simply put, the Democrats could use a good
presidential scandal and Iraq seems like the per
fect deck from which to draw. The war was not
unanimously supported. Each day, major news
sources report another American death. And
while Saddam’s sons have been killed, neither
Saddam nor weapons of mass destruction have
been found. Thus, out of the garden of hindsight
grows the question, “Why did we go to Iraq in
the first place?” Enter the Democratic National
Committee and its irresponsible portrayal of the
reasoning for the war.
A political ad that is currently running on the
Democratic National Committee’s Web site fea
tures a short clip of the president during the
State pf the Union saying “Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa.” Curiously absent are the words,
“The British government has learned ...”
Without these words the president may well
have been the liar that many Democrats would
have loved to catch. The president’s words were
grotesquely and irresponsibly spliced; the presi
dent is no liar.
The United States did not go to war with
Iraq because “ ... Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa.” In fact, Bush referenced this British
intelligence finding only once - no time before
or after the State of the Union. Congress had
already agreed to the use of force in Iraq two
months before State of the Union, lest one try
suggest this uranium information was a decid
ing factor for the Iraqi war. Again, though, it
matters little whether this information was
vital to a decision because it was a factual
statement made, one can assume, with the
absence of any attempt to misinform the
American public.
The real scandal behind this uranium issue is
that there is really no scandal at all. “Uranium-
gate” is more of a hopeful hallucination among
Bush’s opponents than it is a humiliation for the
president. It’s time that Democrats and Bush crit
ics give up on this fruitless attempt at creating a
scandal.
Michael Ward is a junior
history major.
2/2 house, new, furnished,
) deposit, utilities paid. 979-
:e needed ASAP. 1 block
224-1071
ate ASAP. 4bdrnV3ba.
big house, nice neighbor-
roommates. $385/ino.
31-684-7620; 696-7817.
1-F, 3bdrm/2ba. $375/mo.
•w house. Call Lauren 680-
ided ASAP. 4/4 condo on
-y 281-799-2428.
eded to take over 2/2 du-
'/D conn., yard, bus-route,
)220-3487.
eded! M/F-preferred. Bills
3/2/2 W/D, yard, broad-
ing areas, on bus route.
I 822-3908.
reded for a new 3bd/2ba
Aerofit. nice landscape
m, W/D, microwave, etc.
•eded for nice 3bdrm/2ba
ose to campus, W/D,
rnished or unfurnished.
Christian Roommates
utilities. New 4bd/3ba
iRVICES
tensive Driving. Lots-of-
:!! Ticket dismissal/insur-
M-T(6pm-9pm), W-
Fri.&Sat.- Fri(6pm-8pm)
pm), Sat(8am-2:30pm).
merica. Waik-ins wel-
i. Lowest price allowed by
Dr., Ste.217. 846-6117.
. early.
EANING. Housekeeping
'5-3355. Move in/out, bi-
r. Affordable rates, $62
)S@ CS.com
MAIL CALL
lot all good writers are journalists
In response to Matthew Maddox's July 30 column:
ifecently read Matthew Maddox's article in The Battalion entitled
financial Responsibility." In the midst of many poorly-written arti-
K feebly defending the closing of the journalism department,
•laddox's article shines out.
written and well researched, the article thoroughly
pressed me.
R)e funny thing is, though, that this, by far the most credible piece
'journalism in The Battalion written by a current student, was not
•ten by a journalism major, but by a management major,
ustsome food for thought while everyone ardently defends the
cessity of a journalism major.
Zachary Crannell
Class of 2006
correct math on Battalion's front page
In response to an August 4 news article:
In this article, The Battalion claims that Texas A&M saw a
bease of 7,000 summer school students this year. Yet Summer
)nd 10-week session enrollments only dropped from 17,179 to
6,478 (a 701 student decrease), and Summer II enrollment only
entfrom 10,309 to 9,530 (a 779 student decrease).
From those statistics, A&M only saw a 1,480 drop in Summer
Jiool enrollment, not the 7,000 claimed by the paper. It should not
ft a math major to figure this out, maybe just more careful editing.
Mark McSpadden
Class of 2004
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 200 words or less
••itinclude the author's name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves
bright to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in per-
^atOM Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters also may be mailed to; 014
ftdMcDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-1 111. Fax:
fe)845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebatt.com. Attachments are not accepted.
Democrats up to old tricks
T exas is experiencing a
case of political deja
vu. Just a few months
after the Democratic mem
bers of the Texas House of
Representatives fled for a
vacation in Oklahoma, the
Senate Democrats decided that an encore
performance in New Mexico would be just
the thing to wrap up the special legislative
session.
The reason they did this was based on
Senate rule changes that Lt. Gov. David
Dewhurst planned to institute to pass a
congressional redistricting bill favoring
Republicans. But the runaways, like chil
dren, seem to forget that they, the minority,
cannot win every battle, and they have a
duty to be present to conduct the business
of the Senate, even if this business is not
what they wish it to be.
The actions of the Democrats violate
their obligation to fulfill their duties as
senators and undermine the system of
government in Texas. Those senators who
decided to run to New Mexico, like their
House brethren several months ago, chose
to support the national party instead of
doing what they were elected to do —
legislate.
These senators have used several ploys
ranging from making veiled threats to
twisting the truth to justify their actions.
Before the first special session had even
ended, they solicited an opinion by an
attorney on the ability of Dewhurst to
order state troopers to arrest them as they
DAVID SHOEMAKER
fled the capital. The attorney,
Keith Hampton, was quoted
in The Houston Chronicle as
saying that such action by
the Republican leadership
could be considered “con
spiracy to commit aggravat
ed kidnapping.”
Democratic Sen. Mario Gallegos told
The Chronicle that he hoped Perry would
back down and not call a second special
session. But when that didn’t happen and
the attorney general decided that they
could be brought back to the capital, they
fled. Democrats claim that Dewhurst’s sus
pension of the 2/3 rule broke tradition and
that they could not return until he restored
their ability to kill redistricting.
But Dewhurst himself responded to
these claims in an editorial in The
Chronicle. Dewhurst said the last three
times special sessions on redistricting
were held, the lieutenant governor at the
time suspended the 2/3 rule. In fact,
Dewhurst said in 1992 that the Democrats
were in the same position as the
Republicans are currently. Then-Lt. Gov.
Bob Bullock suspended the 2/3 rule
because he did not have a 2/3 majority to
pass a redistricting bill favorable to
Democrats. With Democrats now in the
minority, the 2/3 rule has become an unal
terable Senate tradition.
But that has not stopped Democrats
from trying to find inventive ways to sub
vert the way things are supposed to work
in the Senate. According to The Chronicle,
they have enlisted the Democratic National
Committee to find legal means to allow
the escapees to return and still thwart the
governor and the will of a majority of
Texans. Currently, their plan is to file a
lawsuit alleging that the suspension of the
2/3 rule is a violation of minority voting
rights. Apparently no one at the DNC is
concerned with the fact that they are busy
subverting the will of the majority of vot
ers in the state.
It seems the Democrats haven’t realized
that Texas has voted Republican for presi
dential elections for quite some time, most
all statewide offices are held by
Republicans and both houses of the
Legislature are majority Republican.
Although there are and should be rights for
the minority party, the system depends
upon majority rule, which Republicans
hold at the moment. The system also
depends upon legislators being there to do
their jobs, even if they cannot get what
they want.
For a long time. Republicans were the
minority party in Texas, but they did not
flee and break quorum. Instead, they
stayed, even as they lost vote after vote,
because they knew that was what they had
been elected to do. Democrats should grow
up and realize they cannot rule forever, nor
can they can win them all.
David Shoemaker is a junior
management major.