Replies

As others have pointed out, the statement was 100% accurate. We had sources that have since been discredited (and were very questionable at the time the SOTU address was being written) that tended to corroborate the Niger incident. There has also been other info about other possible sources (Congo and another north African country I can't remember at the moment). The Brits might also have other (better?) information from Niger of from one of these other countries. To this day, the Brits stand by their estimate, though they don't want to reveal their sources for the intelligence.

One thing that Condi Rice could have made more clear was the fact that in the earlier Cincinatti speech incident, the information might not have been pulled because it was inaccurate. It could have been pulled because it was too specific and might have endangered the source. She hinted that it was too specific, but she didn't make it clear that information that is so specific as to potentially identify the source can be pulled to protect the source, even it the information is highly accurate.

"As others have pointed out, the statement was 100% accurate. We had sources that have since been discredited (and were very questionable at the time the SOTU address was being written) that tended to corroborate the Niger incident. There has also been other info about other possible sources (Congo and another north African country I can't remember at the moment). The Brits might also have other (better?) information from Niger of from one of these other countries. To this day, the Brits stand by their estimate, though they don't want to reveal their sources for the intelligence."

The line was included in the speech to gain public support for the invasion. The President said it as if it were the truth, not a theory which may or may not be verified. It is nothing less than Clintonesque to say that the statement was technically correct when the assertion contained within it was false. There is a lot of support to be lost with maneuvers like this one, and it should be stopped immediately. It portrays the people who believed the State of the Union Address as fools for believing the statement as it was given.

As others have pointed out, the statement was 100% accurate. We had sources that have since been discredited (and were very questionable at the time the SOTU address was being written) that tended to corroborate the Niger incident.

Our sources were discredited by Sept 2002 which by my count is 3-4 months prior to the State of the Union address. Doesnt intelligence that the CIA admits is a forgery make you suspicious of the other intelligence or are you basing your whole argument on the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

One thing that Condi Rice could have made more clear was the fact that in the earlier Cincinatti speech incident, the information might not have been pulled because it was inaccurate. It could have been pulled because it was too specific and might have endangered the source.

So now the defense is that based on "might have been." Is this your idea of a high standard? You may be right but I can say Bill Clinton might have been the greatest President of the 20th century but that doesnt make it true.