A question about the SOTU the press MUST ask.

[Walt Starr]

"Why, if; as Candi Rice claims; the CIA vetted the statement made in the SOTU address and then Mr. Powell refused to use it in his U.N. address just eight days later, was there no retraction of the statement on February 3, 2003?"

[Robroy]

1. Not only that...

but how can Condi Rice say the SOTU was cleared by the CIA while, on the other hand, CIA Director Tenet says he never saw the final draft?

[damnraddem]

6. It was seen only on a need-to-know basis.

The Dubya gang figured that the CIA didn't actually need to see it in order to rubber-stamp it.

[enough]

2. And while they're at it --

A significant twist of their twisted logic here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030711/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc_6

This story contains a detail I haven't noticed before.

The White House is saying that even though they had been told the uranium information wasn't real, they figured they could use it anyway as long as they referred to the British report on it.

"if it was attributed to Britian it would be factually accurate."

This is a flat-out ADMISSION that they KNOWINGLY used false information by relying on a technicality to make it "true."

I'd like to hear an answer to this one too.

[indepat]

5. Colin has answered: it was an honest

mistake, no apology needed.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[a_random_joel]

4. Where exactly does the buck stop?

Condi Rice - National Security Advisor

Colin Powell - Secretary of State

Who do you think would have stronger credentials in regards to vetting a "National Security" matter?

[damnraddem]

7. Can I have more options, please? I don't like those two.

But I won't be too strict -- for example, I'd accept Bozo the Clown as better than those two.