Is this an important piece of the SOTU story?

[AnnabelLee]

Or is it too circumstantial?

I remembered this from Will Pitt's interview of Ray McGovern:

Well, somebody said, “How about those reports earlier this year that Iraq was trying to get Uranuim from Niger? Yeah…that was pretty good.” But of course if George Tenet were there, he would have said, “But we looked at the evidence, and they’re forgeries, they stink to high heaven.” So the question became, “How long would it take for someone to find out they were forgeries?” The answer was about a day or two. The next question was, “When do we have to show people this stuff?” The answer was that the IAEA had been after us for a couple of months now to give it to them, but we can probably put them off for three or four months.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/062603B.shtml

Here's the 3/26/03 story about the IAEA discovering, in short order,that the documents were forgeries.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=3&num=274

Given that it had to have been obvious to bushco that the IAEA would see through the documents almost immediately, is the fact that the documents were withheld for months an important part of the story?

[librechik]

1. That's why they've been working overtime to smear the IAEA

and UNSCOM--they're the experts of record, and if they can make them look like liars or morons, it will boot their evidence.

It's a ridiculously pathetc and evil ruse.

[AnnabelLee]

2. Kick