Drivel?
What you're calling drivel has been widely reported and accepted: the documents were obvious, clumsy fakes and that fact was widely known within the government. See, for example this KnightRider Joe Galloway article
or this extract from Rep.Waxman's letter to Condy Rice:
Your claims, however, are directly contradicted by other evidence. Contrary to your assertion, senior Administration officials had serious doubts about the forged evidence well before the President's State of the Union address. For example, Greg Thielmann, Director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation, and Military Issues in the State Department, told Newsweek last week that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) had concluded the documents were "garbage." As you surely know, INR is part of what you call "the
intelligence community." It is headed by an Assistant Secretary of State,
Carl Ford; it reports directly to the Secretary of State; and it was a full
participant in the debate over Iraq's nuclear capabilities. According to Newsweek:
"When I saw that, it really blew me away," Thielmann told Newsweek.
Thielmann knew about the source of the allegation. The CIA had come up with some documents purporting to show Saddam had attempted to buy up to 500 tons of uranium oxide from the African country of Niger. INR had concluded that the purchases were implausible - and made that point clear to Powell's office. As Thielmann read that the president had relied on these documents to report to the nation, he hought, "Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?"
Waxman letter to C. Rice
or this:
"CLOSE: They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their technical services division who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get by. I mean it's just, it's mystifying to me. I can't understand it."
CNN transcript UN Saying Document Were Faked
It's drivel, alright.
sp