back then, was called Top Ten ways the media has not covered the history leading to our possible war:

5.)  At the United Nations long awaited evidence hearing, Colin Powell said, "every statement I make today is based on sources. Solid sources." Then he said, "I recall my colleagues’ attention to the fine paper the UK distributed yesterday [sic] which describes, in exquisite detail, Iraqi deception activities." About this document, Tony Blair said: "the document published today is based, in large part, on the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee. The JIC is at the heart of the British Intelligence machinery...Its work, like the material it analyses, is largely secret." Both of these statements appear to me to imply that the info is recent, current, on-the-ground work by their own actual agents- not pure cut and paste plagiarism (which is what it was, word for word) from an American paper published on the net, which in itself was largely based on the books and articles of others.  Now it is true that this paper was a good, accurate, and succinct analysis of what went on during the 1980s and ‘90s, but their handling of it implies an up-to the minute account of secret evidence. This does not give us any reason to believe we are receiving the truth from our own people when they play us phone conversations and show us photos. If they can cut and paste and call it their own intelligence, why should we believe they’re not concocting all the rest of the ‘info’? Note- I heard this story in full on NHPR’s rebroadcast of the Canadian show, As It Happens, (2/7/03) and once on Fox News (lamely).