In trying to defend the indefensible in its depiction of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration is now making a legalistic argument that would be laughable if the matter were not so serious. Because the British government believed in January that Iraq had been trying to import large quantities of uranium from Africa, top administration officials are saying, Mr. Bush was technically correct when he cited the British concerns in the State of the Union address. The explanation conveniently glosses over the fact that long before Mr. Bush delivered the speech on Jan. 28, American intelligence officials had concluded that the British charge was probably unreliable.
The British-made-us-do-it defense might be more compelling if London had a better track record when it came to assessing Iraq's unconventional weapons programs. ....
Yet the charge still found its way into the State of the Union speech. Mr. Tenet has accepted blame for the C.I.A.'s failure to tell the White House to yank it, but the real question is why the White House put it in the address — and kept it there — long after it had been debunked.
Calling Mr. Keller! Calling Mr. Keller! The answer to your question is:
And they all knew what they were doing when they wrote the 16 weasel words. The Official Story just isn't plausibly deniable.
NOTE: Sorry to keep pounding on the VIPS (copy) stuff -- but these guys deserve a hearing.