Josh Marshall also puts the spotlight on Rice today.

While I see no reason to exonerate her, I don't think she is at the heart of the problem.

Marshall's question from July 12 is more on the right track: If Tenet and the CIA are guilty of not pushing hard enough to keep bogus or 'highly dubious' information out of the State of the Union speech, who was pushing on the other side?

I have suggested on another thread here today that the real protagonists are Rumsfeld and Cheney and that their henchman was Robert G. Joseph.

Time: A Question of Trust

When the time came to decide whether Bush was going to cite the allegation, the CIA objected—and then relented. Two senior Administration officials tell TIME that in a January conversation with a key National Security Council (nsc) official just a few days before the speech, a top cia analyst named Alan Foley objected to including the allegation in the speech. The nsc official in charge of vetting the sections on WMD, Special Assistant to the President Robert Joseph, denied through a spokesman that he said it was O.K. to use the line as long as it was sourced to British intelligence. But another official told TIME, "There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the U.K. made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned." And so the line went in. While some argued last week that the fight should have been kicked upstairs to Rice for adjudication, White House officials claim that it never was.

Does Robert G. Joseph have plausible deniability?

This delightful mess might just test Shrub's famed sense of loyalty, with Condi one of his inside favs. Who is shoving her out in front of the cameras to compound the lies, and who is quiet? Delicious. Josh's piece should get the press onto the Condi v. Wilson stuff. Shrub says case closed and then Condi quickly ensures it ain't. Oh to be a fly on Rove's wall! And Powell's.

Speaking of Rumsfeld, the US News and World Report has an article about his latest plans for military aggression, this time w/North Korea:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030721/usnews/21korea.htm

As much as it pains me to even appear to be defending anyone from this administration I don't beleive that Cheney actually meant to claim Saddam actually had nuclear weapons. There is a recent discussion on this over at Spinsanity. I believe Cheney misspoke when he neglected to say 'program' at the end of the cited quote. Whether there was some sinister motive to the 'mistake' or not is debatable. That being said I don't think that Condi Rice can be indicted on this one.

What is interesting is what her role was in the effort to keep the uranium charges in the SOTU. Shifting liability on the claim to the Brits when our intel people said the story was bogus smacks of intentional deception. Now we are relying on hearsay evidence?

I'm sick and tired of being misled by a bunch of ideologues bent not only on putting our troops in danger but at the same time cutting their benefits. These hawks like bombing the hell out of people and then call it liberating. They try and hold the high ground when it comes to sex and a president, but just love blasting the limbs off of woman and children. They're sick people who need serious help. God save us from their agenda. The soon to be nuclear war will be their biggest offspring. They treat our needy with disdain and spend our money on their preemptive war aftermaths. They ought to be brought in front of the world court and charged with war crimes.