|
"Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed".
So George let Bush have his way: Cite the British report (it did exist, that's a fact), even though the language had been changed, by whom he doesn't say. Yes, BushCO wanted to cite the existence of the report, even though he knew that it did not contain proof of a Niger-Iraqi uranium deal; in fact, it was a forgery.
Next question: Did Bush know it was a forgery? Well, who engaged Joe Wilson to investigate the issue, or did Joe just go on his own cause he had nuthin' better to do?
Hint: DC, as in Washington, DC.
And who forged the documents? Inquiring minds are going to know..
|