"The British stand by their statement," Rice said. They have told us that despite the fact that we had apparently some concerns about that report, that they had other sources, and that they stand by the statement."
Condi fingers the Brits. The Brits stand by their statement -- but (as we know), all the public evidence in the British reports has also collapsed, and the CIA warned the Brits against the forged Niger uranium intelligence anyhow, although the Brits ignored that.
What the Brits have been saying, for eight months, is that they have "other sources" that they cannot reveal. Blair's own parliamentary committee finds this "very odd indeed."
So although the Brits stand by their statement, there's no way to know if it's true.
A beautiful thought to explain the "odd"-ness:
Someone in the administration has been playing both ends against the middle. The Brits' "other sources" are -- wait for it -- in the US! Which would certainly explain why the Brits have not been forthcoming with their names. Someone... But not the CIA.... Hmmm.... Bush and his poodle, Tony Blair, will have much to discuss when they meet for dinner next week. Two old friends... Which one owns the other, I wonder?
Big picture time: Now the core of the case for preemptive against Saddam -- the nuclear threat -- turns out to rest on unrevealed, unnamed intelligence sources from the UK.
This seems a strange justification for sending American soldiers to die.
UPDATE: Condi also says:
"We have every reason to believe that the British services are quite reliable"
Funny! That's not what the British think.
These people don't even know when they're lying any more.