[Dolphy]

Anyone know how Bush's speeches get written? Someone involved in the speech writing set him up?

I don't know if someone was trying to set him up, clearly he went out of his way to refer to British intelligence.

My question is, if the Brits believe and continue to believe in their intelligence, why wouldn't the US try to reconcile their apparent thin evidence with that the Brits had. Tenet is standing up and taking responsibility while Blair is simply standing by his original assertion. Obviously the British have other evidence.

Secondly, why is this becoming an issue now? Didn't El Baradei announce during a UN meeting that the document was forged? This coming after all of the debate and charges of misrepresentation (in the US press) over the aluminum tubes? The press has had plenty of time to investigate and wildly fling their accusations, why are they just getting to it now?

I know this, nuclear weapons were not the single basis of military action, or the most prominent justification provided in the State of the Union address. They were a question, a possibility, something confirmed in Iraq's past with information indicating that a program might still be active. Was Bush to rely on the IAEA? How foolish would that be given their record of underestimating programs in Iraq (in the past) and more recently Iran.

[Calpernia]

>>>My question is, if the Brits believe and continue to believe in their intelligence, why wouldn't the US try to reconcile their apparent thin evidence with that the Brits had.

Cause it wasn't just the Brits. It was Italy's intelligence too.

[Calpernia]

>>>, why is this becoming an issue now? Didn't El Baradei announce during a UN meeting that the document was forged?

I remember watching the coverage of Hans Blix's report to the UN Security Council. ElBaradei was very quiet and short on words. Volunteered nothing.

BUT, as soon as the Niger document came up, ElBaradei was forthcoming, quick with a response, and volunteered information.

[Calpernia]

>>>>I know this, nuclear weapons were not the single basis of military action, or the most prominent justification provided in the State of the Union address. They were a question, a possibility, something confirmed in Iraq's past with information indicating that a program might still be active. Was Bush to rely on the IAEA? How foolish would that be given their record of underestimating programs in Iraq (in the past) and more recently Iran.

What you indicated is correct; but, to a more specific concern. You need to research thoroughly, http://www.iraqwatch.org . This is merely a holding engine for more specifics. Not an opinion.