[piasa]

JULY 19?, 2003 : (WHITE HOUSE REJECTS SENATOR DURBIN'S CLAIMS) The White House official rejected charges by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Thursday that the White House pressured a reluctant CIA official to include the uranium claim in Bush's speech and settled on attributing it to British intelligence because of CIA doubts. The official disputed reports that there were "protracted" negotiations over how to word the uranium claim and said to the best of his knowledge there were no negotiations at all and no red flags raised. The official said the speech's original draft said "we know" that Iraq is trying to get African uranium and the speechwriters decided instead to attribute a series of charges about Iraq's weapons to specific sources for greater credibility.
The official added that the CIA man vetting the speech raised no objections about the uranium reference, even though CIA Director George Tenet removed a more specific reference from an earlier Bush speech. Tenet objected in the earlier speech because the claim rested on a single source, not because he believed it was wrong, the official said. - "CIA UNVEILS MORE NUKE-PLAN PROOF," by DEBORAH ORIN, New York Post, 7/19/03

[n-tres-ted]

Shortly after Libya folded its tent, I saw an investigative news report by a Scottish newspaper stating that most of the nuclear scientists in the Libyan mountain labs were IRANIAN, not Iraqi. No mention of Iraq in that report. I emailed the reporters asking about any indication of Iraqi involvement, but got no response. Reports have been that Saddam was Kaddafi's mentor/idol for years, so I cannot imagine Libya, Iran and NK being in a big nuclear weapons deal without Iraq. Iran in a deal w/Libya w/o Saddam?! Just doesn't fit IMO. So the report from Loftus seems to make sense. But still no reconciliation of the first report out of Iranian scientists w/ Loftus' report of Iraqis. Anyone know any more recent or more accurate info?