Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

Actually, you are correct.

The CIA had informed the British last fall,
just after the Brits released their "white paper" that the Nigerian documents
were forged, that they were (supposedly) signed by officials who were no longer
in power,
and that a US investigation into the matter
indicated the claim was a hoax.

I should have said the "British were already aware that the information was
bogus" rather than "the British had already backed off."

Score on this particular phrase:
"joe" 1. Gould 0.

"Joe" wrote in message
...


I did find the following excepts interesting-

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of
people: current government officials, former government officials,
people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken
place.

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

Call me crazy, but if local customs involved drinking sweet mint tea, I
think an effective CIA operative, ambassador or whatever would do well to
drink plenty of it, if it meant being able to talk to the right people.

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

Call me crazy, but if local customs involved drinking sweet mint tea, I
think an effective CIA operative, ambassador or whatever would do well to
drink plenty of it, if it meant being able to talk to the right people.



Your crazy :-)

Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago

The uranium issue has never been disproved, only the "forged" documents
have.

and the CIA had already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why
use it?

The US did not receive the forged documents until Oct 02.
These speeches were prior to the US receiving the "forged" documents when
intel was weaker. These documents temporarily made the case stronger for the
Niger/Saddam connection.

We all know now that the documents were forged, we just don't know (yet)
when the administration knew.
Either way, the Brits are standing strongly by the Niger/Saddam intel saying
that they never relied on just those documents.



"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

I'll agree with you on this one, there was nothing to gain by those
comments.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:09:05 +0000, Joe wrote:



I have not yet fully formed an opinion on the subject and will take
the Administration at it's word until proven otherwise. I do support
an investigation into the matter, to be done behind closed doors
with the Senate intelligence Committee.

Just curious, why not a public investigation? To me, there just
seems to be too many questions. If the investigation is not open, I
fear conspriacy theories will be rampant and no one will be
satisfied with the outcome.

There is no way to be sure of what happened, but I am highly
suspicious of Rumsfeld's Office of Special Plans. It seems most of
the bad intell came from there.

An interesting read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/030512fa_fact

"noah" wrote in message
...



Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago, and the CIA had
already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why use it?

"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

In order to be "damned careful of his words", we'd need a president who is
capable of thinking clearly about the consequences of those words. The
current president is the same guy who, while campaigning, said that one of
his ways of relaxing was to spend an hour or two per day playing video
games. And, when asked about the kinds of things he likes to read, he said
"I read the newspapers".

Next president, please.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:27:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .



Bill- I never stated that GWB lied. I 'think" he did, but without
proof, I would never make that accusation. What I did say is that, as
POTUS, during war, he should be damned careful of his words. Since
the uranium issue had been disproved some time ago, and the CIA had
already struck that wording from an earlier speech, why use it?

"Bring it on." churned my stomach. Bravado. Stupid bravado. They
*are* bringing it on, at a daily cost of US life. Words aren't always
cheap.
noah

In order to be "damned careful of his words", we'd need a president who is
capable of thinking clearly about the consequences of those words. The
current president is the same guy who, while campaigning, said that one of
his ways of relaxing was to spend an hour or two per day playing video
games. And, when asked about the kinds of things he likes to read, he said
"I read the newspapers".

Next president, please.

At least his hand/eye coordination is better than his pronunciation!
)
I know it's "old news", but everytime he says "Noo-cue-lar weapons", I
shudder.

Courtesy of Lee Yeaton,
See the boats of rec.boats
www.TheBayGuide.com/rec.boats