[deport]

If they are inaccurate now, then of course they were inaccurate when spoken.

---

But were they known to be inaccurate when spoken. That's the key...... not that they've been proven inaccurate now.

[Cathryn Crawford]

That means that the error is even more grevious.

[Mo1]

But were they known to be inaccurate when spoken. That's the key...... not that they've been proven inaccurate now.

They weren't known at the time

[cyncooper]

If they are inaccurate now, then of course they were inaccurate when spoken. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But were they known to be inaccurate when spoken. That's the key...... not that they've been proven inaccurate now.

The words were accurate when spoken and they remain accurate in every way now.

The question is was it appropriate for a POTUS to make reference to a situation buttressed mostly by foreign intelligence and not relying on our own agency that could substantiate it. (And they do have some information to substantiate it, but not as much as they'd like.)

But as I keep pointing out, Blair and Straw most strenuosly stand by their intelligence to this very moment, and that is what President Bush said: That British intelligence has found that Iraq sought to obtain uraniam in Africa.