[Mind-numbed Robot]

Well, that's true, but it would not serve the President for him to suggest that he's not responsible for the content of the State of the Union address that he delivers to Congress.

It seems to me that Bush has answered this charade by saying that the CIA vetted the speech, not as a pass-the-buck-gesture but to say that the intelligence was there whether this particular piece of it proved reliable or not. The left is insisting that Bush lied and that U.S. troops died as a result. Bush didn't gather the data, the British did. Bush didn't analyze the data, the British and the CIA did. Bush passed the speech by the CIA before he delivered it. The CIA approved. Where is the confusion?

So, it later proved false or maybe it was proved false even before it was given, but that never reached Bush or he wouldn't have said it. He is too smart to get into this trap. The left is trying to do to Bush what they did to Trent Lott.

[cyncooper]

So, it later proved false or maybe it was proved false even before it was given, but that never reached Bush or he wouldn't have said it.

Your comments are excellent, except the above. There were forged documents, but the British intelligence had *additional* sources.

Please see my link at #30 where Jack Straw has written of such and even cites the much discussed Joseph Wilson---as ultimately supporting their paper.

As of today Britain stands by their intelligence, and per Wendell Goler in Africa he said this very morning that administration officials still believe Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.