So Josh writes:
Quote:
The Butler Report -- in an explicit effort to retrospectively validate the president's '16 words' in the 2003 state of the union -- claimed that the British judgment had not relied on the forged Niger papers. However, there was an earlier British parliamentary inquiry in September 2003 -- before the issue became such a political hot potato. And that report makes clear that most of the British judgment was based on the forged documents*
****
*[link to earlier post] As I say, there's a lot of jargon and bureaucratic gobbledygook here. But the key point is that the authors of the earlier report felt free to be candid about what the Butler Report chose to keep hidden -- namely, that most of the British judgment about 'uranium from Africa' was based on the phony documents the Butler Report claims had nothing to do with their judgment.
|
Let me get this straight:
1) The Brits commissioned a second report
solely to validate Bush's claim (and those prove Wilson a liar and wrong)?
2) The second report - obviously later in time and benefiting from the addition of new information, more intel and research, and more documents, is somehow
less valid than the earlier report?
Threaded Mode