Then here we must agree to disagree. I am satisfied that the several
reports saying that the CIA requested the words not be there are truthful.
OK. I don't have much interest in that one way or the other but in
the interest of explanation, my source is the Senate Intelligence
Committee transcript
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_toc.htm
In particular,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-i.htm
which is the section on Niger. Page 64 of the printed report, or page
28 of the electronic PDF in the Niger section says
'...the WINPAC Director's concerns about using the uranium infomation
pertained only to revealing sources and methods and not to any
concerns about the credibility of the uranium reporting. The WINPAC
Director said because the Niger information was specifically and
directly tied to a foreign government service, his concern was about
releasing classified information in an unclassified speech. He told
Committee staff that this had been the CIA'Slongstanding position and
was the reason the CIA wanted the reference removed from the British
white paper.'
Did something more come to light after the Senate investigation?
--buck
