[deport]

They can't claim Bush knew the uranium story wasn't true because the CIA didn't get the document until after the SOTU.

---

But that's part of the problem you see.... Using unvetted info that couldn't be documented at the time.....

[cyncooper]

The CIA has alway said, and says to this day, that they have information on the uranium story--the fragments. Not unvetted, but unverified. The British have the amount of documentation that satisfies them.

And so we close the circle back to where we started: That Bush cited British intelligance. That our CIA had information independent of any forged documents, but not enough to satisfy them to sign off on the president informing the American public based on their info alone.

This last is important because some media, and therefore freepers, claimed the ONLY information the U.S./CIA ever had were the forged documents. I've argued that was not true and am glad to see it start to be spelled out.

[Ethyl]

They can't claim Bush knew the uranium story wasn't true because the CIA didn't get the document until after the SOTU.

---

But that's part of the problem you see.... Using unvetted info that couldn't be documented at the time.....


Not necessarily a problem, because Mr. Bush said that "we learned from the British....." Not the CIA.

[skr]

"But that's part of the problem you see.... Using unvetted info that couldn't be documented at the time....."

The forged document isn't the only evidence upon which the British are basing their claim. The attack dogs conveniently leave that out whenever they bring up their accusations.