Here's a fun question for Bush and Blair:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

In line with my previous post on the conundrum the Bush administration faces and the possibility of a joint press conference, here's where a reporter can have some fun.

Bush and his minions have repeatedly said that the British STILL stand by the accuracy of their report. But today's Guardian tells a slightly different story: HERE

Key Passage:

"Making a statement to MPs on the situation in Iraq ahead of Westminster's summer recess, Mr Straw said the government had "no knowledge" that documents passed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger were forged until February 2003."

This, of course, is a very convenient date for Bush (SOTU, Jan. 28). But it now makes it tough for the "accuracy" defense. Is intelligence still "darn good"? Question: Mr. Bush, are you sorry you used British intelligence now that you know that it is bogus? Follow up: if the British government knew it was bogus in February, why did they not tell you this? Or did they tell you this? If so, why didn't you inform the American public? Also, if they did tell you, why did you say the British STILL believe their report is true?

I can keep going, but you get the picture.

[DagmarK]

1. good point, I mean......the Admin is saying they realized after SOTU

that the intelligence wasn't of the QUALITY they prefer for important speeches. Then.....why didn't they get on the stick and INFORM the public in Feb or March or anytime AFTER the SOTU? Why? Because it would defeat the purpose of having it in the speech in the first place -- to scare the public into thinking a mushroom cloud was on the way...within 45 minutes!

**I was vehemently against the Iraq action from the first utterings of it in 2002. But even I was a little swayed by the nuclear talk. Even I was saying..."whoa...nukes? Saddam? WTF?"

It was the most salient portion of the speech.

The thing that gets me is that Bush doesn't even realize that a SOTU to Congress and the people is a VERY DIFFERENT thing than doing a campaign speech. He doesn't have the education, intelligence or the character to realize that there is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two. He's just a spokesmodel, and starts talking when they tell him to and stops (usually) when they tell him to.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. Yes, but their other line is

the the British intelligence was good. Your point is absolutely correct. But the admin. has two competing narratives out there. That the intelligence wasn't good, that the intelligence was, and IS STILL, good. This story from the Guardian now disrupts their second narrative and creates more problems.